Santorum Suspends Presidential Campaign 577
bobwrit writes with this excerpt from CNN:
"Conservative challenger Rick Santorum announced Tuesday that he is suspending his Republican presidential campaign after a weekend of 'prayer and thought,' effectively ceding the GOP nomination to front-runner Mitt Romney. Santorum made his announcement after the weekend hospitalization of his 3-year-old daughter Isabella, and in the face of tightening poll numbers in Pennsylvania — the state he represented as a U.S. senator — ahead of the April 24 primary. 'Ladies and gentlemen, we made the decision to get into this race around our kitchen table, against all the odds,' Santorum told a news conference, flanked by emotional family members. 'We made a decision over the weekend that while the presidential race for us is over, and I will suspend my campaign effective today, we are not done fighting.'"
Color me surprised. Or not. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a hard time believing that Santorum actually expected to have a chance at this stage. My mother is a Neo-conservative Christian party-line voter, and even she is considering voting for Obama again; and not because she likes him. The entire GOP lineup is a mess.
Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.
Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ron Paul is the best candidate America had in over 50 years.
While I admire him for many of his views (anti-war, personal privacy, consistent, etc), Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. He is not realistic in many of his plans - and he can get away with it because he doesn't really expect to win. For example, he's the guy who plans to eliminate IRS and (at least earlier) public schools. How realistic is that?
Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (Score:4, Insightful)
How would he manage that? Public schools are run at the State and local level, not by the Federal government.
And the President really doesn't have the power to shut down State and local programs.
Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (Score:5, Informative)
The IRS could use some trimming... we can all agree on that.
He never said anything about getting rid of public schools that I'm aware of. He just wanted to get rid of the Department of Education at the Federal level. He feels the individual State Boards are doing a good enough job and the Federal level is a waste of resources. (At least, that's how I interpreted it. Never did I get the feeling that he wanted to get rid of Public Schooling though.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
State boards are doing a good enough job? What his definition of a bad job be, then?
He's from Texas, too. Wow.
Re: (Score:3)
He plans to eliminate the IRS... how realistic is that?
It's actually very realistic if you eliminate the military industrial complex. It balances out quite nicely on the accounting books.
Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're an idiot or insane. For normal functional human beings who are not either semi-retarded or sociopaths, he's what you might call a very dangerous, foolish, ignorant man.
This has been a case study in ad-hominem attacks. Thank you for reading.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ron Paul wants to take away their play pretties and pay the bills instead of pissing Trillions away. The left wants to piss it away on people who are "disadvantaged" and the right wants to piss it away on wars. I saw Ron Paul in one debate get booed because he said we couldn't afford to continue being the world's policeman even though it should be obvious to anyone that can do arithmetic. I'm thoroughly convinced that both the democrats and republicans are seriously math challenged.
Re: (Score:3)
The left wants to piss it away on people who are "disadvantaged" and the right wants to siphon it off to military contractors.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
I'm thoroughly convinced that both the democrats and republicans are seriously math challenged.
Maybe a few of them are, but most of them are just giving the voters what they want. It's the voters who are math challenged, and they punish austerity by voting (or keeping) its proponents out of office. Natural selection in action.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (Score:5, Insightful)
RP is right about our military spending. It is just wacko that we spend more now than we did when we had an actual hostile superpower (the USSR) to contend with. He is also right that the government should just butt out of people's private lives (but curiously, he doesn't think women should be able to choose to have abortions). On most other topics, he is a nutter, pure and simple.
Re: (Score:3)
WIkipedia - costs of Iraq war - latest Brown University estimates are 3.2 to 4 trillion dollars for combined Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan war effort. So, about $400 billion per year. This does not count the costs to other countries - that is just U.S. costs. The estimate offered before starting the first one - $100 billion for a two year effort. Afford it? It's easier now, while interest rates are low. It'll be more difficult once interest rates start increasing. The increased debt service will be substa
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What's wrong with Ron Paul? (Score:5, Informative)
(a) Nonsense. (And if you think you're right, then quote Mr. Paul where he said "I want to nullify the 14th." You won't find it.)
(b) We're already on the gold standard. At least the world banks are. They are hoarding gold at a rapid pace, because they know the dollar will lose ~20% of its value in just one decade (thanks to the Fed's rampant running of the printing press). A dollar is paper and has lost 95% of its value since 1920, whereas prior to that, from 1800, it hadlost none (because it was tied to gold).
(c) Is wrong. He wants to reduce the military to be a DEFENSIVE force, protecting our east and west coasts, rather than an offensive force that has killed or maimed over million innocent civilians during the last decade.
(d) is also wrong since he voted *against* the Constitutional Amendment to declare life begins at conception.
(e) He is right. The Congress has no authority to regulate who we must, or must not, allow into our private homes. Or force us to buy insurance we don't want. Said power is reserved to the Member States and the People thereof. (Read the 10th amendment sometime.)
(f) But that works both ways. States ALSO have the right to INCREASE personal freedoms, like legalized prostitution, or legalized marijuana, or legalized homosexual marriage (or even multi-partner marriage). For example Ron Paul supports California's legalization of medical marijuana, while no other president ever has. (Even now Obama's admin is arresting californians with weed.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (Score:5, Informative)
Outdated ideology? Peace and a balanced budget is outdated? Hardly. He has 70% support among people 18 to 35..... it's a *youthful* ideology not an outdated one.
>>>racist past?
Well let's ask some black people. Professor Walter E. Williams do you think Ron Paul racist? "Haahaha. That's ridiculous. I've known Dr. Paul for many years and he is definitely not a racist. On the contrary he's the most egalitarian person I know in Washington, as you would expect from someone who follows libertarian principles." (Quoting from youtube video when W.E.W. was guest hosting Rush Limbaugh.)
How about you, Bruce S. Gordon, former head of the NAACP? "Not in the slightest. I've known Congressman Paul for decades and he is in no way a racist. People who say that makes themselves look foolish." (quoting from radio interview)
And what Ron Paul's black volunteers? Well there are millions of them so I can't quote them here but you can certainly find their homemade videos on youtube. They think the charge is ridiculous, because they know the Drug Prohibition is the true racist policy (more blacks in jail than whites) and that Congressman Paul is the only one who vowed to end the prohibition as unconstitutional (10th amendment).
Re: (Score:3)
>>>>>He has 70% support among people 18 to 35....
>>
>>[Citation doubtful]
Look at the breakdown of the primary results. Ron Paul has won among that age group in almost every state..... And of course he is waaaay more popular than any other candidate on facebook/twitter which is a youth-dominated medium..... Plus being filling-up small stadiums at college campuses all over the U.S.
I mean really -- did you need a citation Anon. Coward? Ron Paul's popularity with the youth is self
Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (Score:4, Insightful)
One other thought:
The latest CBS polling shows that Romney will lose to Obama by 4 percent, whereas Ron Paul would defeat the current president by 5. Maybe YOU hate him but Paul has crossover appeal to independents and Democrats that Romney lacks.
- So if you like Obama and want 4 more years, hope Romney is the republican candidate.
- If you dislike Obama and want him out, then Paul is who you should be backing. The D's and I's like him more than they like Obama, and will put him into the white house.
Re: (Score:3)
The latest CBS polling shows that Romney will lose to Obama by 4 percent, whereas Ron Paul would defeat the current president by 5. Maybe YOU hate him but Paul has crossover appeal to independents and Democrats that Romney lacks.
The only CBS polling that Google seems to know about (and that is reported on Paul's own website) is one that shows Paul beating Obama amongst independent voters. And Romney's slide in the polls has a lot to do with his massive loss of support from women (he still beats or ties Obama amongst men) after supporting all the right-wing insanity over birth control, forced ultrasounds, and the general assault on Women's rights. If the economy takes another dip, if republicans can successfully blame rising gas pri
Re:Color me surprised. Or not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. I think we need a new category of political thought. State-atarian, perhaps. How else can one say it is libertarian to simply move a decision from Federal to State control. Control, regardless of granularity (or bureaucratic burdens of 50x as many regulatory agencies), is still control. Further, state-level control loses economies of scale: everyone gets screwed by the lack of regulatory uniformity and the cost of learning how to comply with 50 disparate regulatory agencies per regulatory category (god help you if your work involves half a dozen different compliance mechanisms like environmental, consumer product safety, banking/finance, etc). As for state control, the near-century between the end of the civil war and federal enforcement of minority civil rights in the south is a damned solid counterargument to ceding such power to states. The only certainty (and in my impression the **GOAL**) of dropping regs to the state level is arbitrage: someone will let megacorps screw them more easily than if federal regs held the entire nation to one standard.
As for Paul's stance, I don't get the charm: his libertarianism is just as naive and flawed as pure-play communism or unregulated capitalism. Hell, every hacker knows that stuff built on ideals are like will-o-wisps, and easily hacked.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not anti-Libertarian. I like it. But I also like socialized things like cops, freeways, and social security. The best ideas come out of the tug of war between libertarianism and socialism and capitalism. Keep all three ideals in your hip pocket as reference and guidance, but keep a copy of Machiavelli and the Art of War, too. Balance their ideals and mechanisms to reach your goals.
Regulations are akin to infosec 'defense in depth' -- they're countermeasures to combat rogues who simply seek to game any simplistic, idealized system. When they get crufty, don't be afraid to refactor (this is what the US **SUCKS** at, IMHO). But please don't pretend that the flaw isn't the cruft itself, but the presence of an ideal you loathe. YOUR idealizations won't survive alone. None do. They'll either be gamed (and that makes them unfair) or they'll need enforcement and balance mechanisms. In other words, they'll need regulations. But (to repeat myself) be vigilant to keep regulations simple and sane. A good regulation mechanism would be a well-designed no-deductions progressive tax simple enough to be autocomputed off paystubs, property records, or whatever. A crappy regulation mechanism is the current US tax code. Or state/local/county sales taxes -- due to the very complexity that the AnonCoward parent advocates by pushing policy down from federal to state levels.
TL/DR: fed vs. state regulation isn't a libertarian issue. Ideals never actually work ideally. And most of our (US's) problems aren't ideological: they're cruft and an unwillingness to refactor crufty legal code. And don't ever implicitly trust an idealist -- always look behind the curtain and try to understand what can go wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with your point about more regulatory agencies - if a particular state chooses to regulate a particular activity - I think you miss the essential point. If decisions that have no constitutional basis are left at the state level and not promoted to or addressed at the federal level, I have more say and influence in adjusting the state laws to suit me (as does everyone else for their respective states) than I do at the federal level. If the state refuses to change existing laws or passes laws I
Good riddance (Score:5, Funny)
Santorum pulls out after repeatedly coming in number two
Re:Good riddance (Score:5, Funny)
My favorite is still "by the end of this year, Santorum will be on the lips of every young Republican" [imgur.com]
Good riddance (Score:4, Funny)
Signed, Someone with a college degree a.k.a a snob.
Re:Good riddance (Score:5, Interesting)
Good bye crazy douche-bag, you will not be missed.
According to conventional wisdom, the Republicans always nominate their runner-up next time around. I saw a couple of sites predicting Romney on this basis, long before the primaries started shaking out.
If the CW is right, Santorum will be their next nominee.
Re: (Score:3)
The scary thing is, if history repeats itself, Santorum will be labeled as the *moderate* candidate in 2016.
Keep 'em coming (Score:4, Funny)
"Santorum Expelled"
"Santorum Voided"
"Santorum Discharged"
"Santorum Creamed"
Re:Keep 'em coming (Score:5, Funny)
Santorum.com [santorum.com] was registered nearly 11 years ago. You're full of crap if you think that the stain on his name can be wiped out in a single spurt. The seminal example of search bombing coming out in a single wash is a little hard to swallow.
GOP lineup -- same prob as 2004 Dem ticket (Score:5, Insightful)
The GOP lineup has the same problem as the 2004 lineup that failed to defeat GWB. I took one look at that ticket and said: A Massachusetts old money man + a slick trial lawyer. That was everything the moderate GOP voter hates about the Dems, and wouldn't make anybody switch. They finally realized they needed something different and went with Obama.
The GOP is making the same mistake. The fact that the front runner is from MA is pure coincidence. It's wealthy businessmen, religious fanatics, and a guy who was fresh in the 90s.
The only "something different" candidate is Ron Paul; but he's too different. The GOP needs something fresh. I'm not sure where it'll come from, but these guys are not fresh. Really, for someone like myself with weak party affiliation the GOP is dead after GWB. The organization itself is defective. Not to say that the Dems are much better. It's the slightly less evil party.
I think we need just a bit more time for things to get so bad that sane people with the capability to lead will want to run on a 3rd party ticket. The two main parties are rapidly on their way to ruining their respective reputations. Not this time though. Not. Ready. Yet.
Re:GOP lineup -- same prob as 2004 Dem ticket (Score:5, Insightful)
Look. Anyone with any sense knew that the Tea Party was going to hamstring the Republicans in the 2012 race. The Democrats knew it, which is why Obama isn't sweating, and hasn't been since he saw how the Republican True Believers all fell in love with a moron (namely Sarah Palin). For the core Republican leadership and strategists, it was equally clear. The Tea Party wasn't some general movement, no matter how much its advocates stated, it was a Libertarian populist movement that was sucking the blood out of the Republican party.
The only thing that was going to cure that was to let the lunatics run the asylum for a while. Everyone knew Romney was going to get the nod, but would be badly damaged in the process. By having the likes of Santorum and Gingrich, men who never ever ever ever ever ever had even the slightest chance of becoming President, cut him to pieces, all that happened was the Tea Party movement managed to hamstring the whole party. But by November of this year, the Tea Party and a goodly chunk of the retrograde social conservatives will be utterly discredited. Romney will limp through to a loss, but the message will be clear; "America does not want extremists, or even people who play extremists on TV."
After this year, the sane candidates will come out of hiding, they're careers and reputations not utterly savaged like Romney's. The next GOP candidate won't have an incumbent to deal with and won't have the Tea Party cancer eating away at the party's strength. I think this whole race has been nothing more than a tactical day at the nut house, and the Republicans will have learned their lesson.
I mean, the Republicans came back from Goldwater. Of course, it was with Nixon, so maybe they don't want to have it map that closely to elections past.
Re:GOP lineup -- same prob as 2004 Dem ticket (Score:5, Insightful)
The Tea Party wasn't some general movement, no matter how much its advocates stated, it was a Libertarian populist movement that was sucking the blood out of the Republican party.
No, it was (mostly) a bunch of middle- and working-class retirees, unwittingly carrying water for billionaires.
And after the first few weeks, only "populist" if being funded by the usual Republican operatives counts as being populist.
I think this whole race has been nothing more than a tactical day at the nut house, and the Republicans will have learned their lesson.
It will be interesting to see if they learn the appropriate lesson, but I don't expect it.
They had a good scam that served them well for half a century: pretend to be conservative rather than plutocratic, and lure people to vote against their own self-interest by playing on their fears, intolerance, and bigotry.
But they've had to keep narrowing that "base" (as the media insists on calling them) by ever more radical rhetoric against everyone else, and now it's getting so narrow that the coalition of plutocrats + bed wetters + social conservatives + bigots doesn't add up to enough people to reliably win elections anymore.
Plus, the plutocrats been appealing to those groups so long that the nutters are starting to run the nuthouse.
But where can they turn? The plutocrats (the real Republican base) certainly aren't going to give up their desire to enrich themselves at public expense, and the nutters aren't going to give up their nuttery.
I suspect the actual lessons to be learned are:
a) the plutocrats will realize they need to divorce the others, and will start looking for a new scam to replace the old one
b) the nutters will conclude that they weren't nutty enough, and crank it up two notches next time around.
The party's civil war will continue, because there's no exit strategy for when the nuts start taking over the nuthouse. Some chance the party will fall apart and be replaced by a new one, as has happened before in the USA, but I expect that to take years, if it happens at all.
Re: (Score:3)
2004 also before katrina, 2008 crash, etc etc etc (Score:3)
and one year after the war in iraq had started, but before it had gone completely to hell in a handbasket.
2004 was in the middle of the housing boom, when every fucking idiot thought they had $500,000 in equity in some piece of shit mcmansion that was in reality just a game piece so that some hedge funder could pump and dump another Mortgage Backed CDO on the widows and orphan investors of the planet.
"ask yourself, are you better off now than you were 4 years ago, using the fake paper accounting that is ful
Ron Paul (Score:3)
You guys still claim to like those things, right?
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)
Why is nobody ever specific on what they find so frightening about his policies? Is the Constitution frightening? His positions are basically the positions of the founding fathers.
I'm going to assume that the 20% that scares you is foreign policy, since most people don't understand his views on that. We bring the troops home and defend our country's borders instead of those of another country. If someone attacks us, go to the Congress and get a declaration of war, identify a specific enemy (not just "terrorists" or some other vague concept), and then attack with overwhelming power and then COME HOME instead of occupying. Some politicians are doves and some are hawks. Ron Paul is a porcupine. They generally want to just be left alone, but if you mess with them you're in for a world of hurt.
Ron Paul is misunderstood on many issues because the media tends to distort his positions. Look at what the man himself has said and done and then decide.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to assume that the 20% that scares you is foreign policy
I would have assumed it's "do away with legislation that is flawed but still protects us from various things." The libertarian response in those cases is that if it were unregulated, something better would come up.
I do find that to be a bit of ideology trumping common sense. Many libertarians, I don't know about Ron Paul specifically, think the FDA should be abolished, that the free market would do a much better job. I suspect that's a naive position, I see no evidence that in the absence of the FDA
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
So I'm among those who like about 60% of what Ron Paul stands for and am seriously worried about the other 40%. (For the record, I like about 30% of what Obama stands for and am seriously worried about 70%, and for Romney the split is closer to 5%/95% with the 5% varying from hour to hour.)
The parts I'm all for: drug legalization, bringing the troops home, restoring civil liberties, and cutting back on big military spending.
The parts I'm seriously concerned about: Returning to a gold standard, eliminating all social welfare programs, pretty much complete deregulation of economic transactions, and eliminating any restrictions on what the states can do within their borders. The reasons:
A) Returning to any sort of metallic standard is basically decreeing 0% inflation. This sounds like a good thing for those with wealth trying to hang onto it, but most economists think somewhere around 2% inflation is actually closer to the ideal, and some argue that 4% is better. Current mainstream macroeconomics thinks that lower inflation generally yields higher unemployment, which was part of the argument of William Jennings Bryan's bimetalism campaign back in the 1890's.
B) Eliminating social welfare programs is just plain stupid, because those without jobs and without welfare will do what they need to do to eat. Private charities can't handle the case load (they're already overbooked), so that means that people will be turning to crime in increasing numbers with the goal of keeping a roof overhead and food on the table. Many of those people will get caught and thrown in prison, costing the government even more than welfare does.
C) Deregulation of business makes for unlevel economic transactions with all the advantage invariably going to the side with the largest supply of capital, legal advice, and market share. In other words, if you think software EULAs and cell phone contracts are one-sided now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
D) The basic problem I tend to have with "state's rights" arguments is that the rights in question have almost always been the right to oppress black people (southern politicians were using that exact phrase in 1860 and 1960 to mean precisely that). Which seems to be activity that Ron Paul at least in the past was a supporter of.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)
Returning to any sort of metallic standard is basically decreeing 0% inflation.
Surprisingly, this is not true. You can still have periods of inflation, even with a gold standard, and you can have periods of deflation as well. In part because of money velocity, and in part because of changing amounts of gold in circulation.
The problem with the gold standard is you have absolutely no control of when the inflation or deflation happens. And by Murphy's law it will happen whenever you don't want it to.
Besides, the world is a better place when gold is used to make things pretty, not stored in vaults.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
Something to notice about your two lists: Look at which items on the lists a president can actually do and which ones he can't.
Your "all for it" list:
Your "seriously concerned" list:
Also, in the areas where a president went too far in exercising his executive powers, Congress could pull him up short by passing legislation that limits his freedom of action in those areas. They probably couldn't limit his power as Commander-in-Chief, because that's not an authority they gave him, but all of the social programs, business regulation, etc., are powers created by legislation, not the Constitution. The authority given by Congress can be taken away, or limited, by Congress. They'd have to do it with veto-proof majorities, but if the president tried to do anything too extreme, that could be done.
Bottom line: Most of the things you'd like RP to do would be within his power as president, while the things you wouldn't like would not. To achieve any of those things, he'd have to convince Congress.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:4, Informative)
His position on abortion cannot be justified by the constitution
Oh, I think "leave it to the states" is a perfectly constitutional opinion.
From his own position description at http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/ [ronpaul.com]:
At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm actually curious as to what does scare you. Personally, as a leftie myself (what they call a "social democrat" in Europe), I don't get why left wing is so mad at Ron Paul. I mean, the guy basically just wants to give the states free reign - so what? This means that we can have our own liberal paradise with blackjack, hookers, marijuana, public healthcare and education etc in blue states, rather than having to fight the tug of war with conservatives over who gets to put more crap into Federal laws. What's wrong with that?
Meanwhile, on the federal policies that do make sense to keep at federal level (like foreign affairs / wars), his stance seems to be much closer to your typical leftie - you know, pulling out of existing conflicts, not starting new ones, and generally minding your own business and not mucking around with other countries.
Re: (Score:3)
He scares the left because he's basically about leaving the states to their own resources, and most states (especially the Red States), don't generate enough GDP to do anything on their own.
Well, if the red states don't want "socialism", why push it onto them?
Also, state politics are notoriously corrupt and prone to special interest groups (see California).
As opposed to federal politics?
Anyway, a simple rule of thumb is this: the closer the government is to the people who elect it, the easier is to fix and/or change it.
The U.S. Federal government is the easiest institution to create a social safety net, control big corporations, etc.
Seeing how these things go, it seems that the Federal government is the easiest institution to create it and make it all wrong or useless. Because, first of all, it has to get through a bitter fight in Congress, and get emaciated due to various "compromises" that are necessar
Re: (Score:3)
He is personally anti-choice, but he believes that it should not be legislated on the federal level, but rather by the states. To quote his website:
"Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
Ron Paul's strength is that he accurately identifies a lot of problems.
Ron Paul's weakness is that his "solutions" to those problems are dangerously naive, based on long-discredited theories, or are just downright crazy (or all of the above).
Any enthusiasm about RP has to be tempered with the realization that even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.
Re: (Score:3)
If you believe that Ron Paul is a plutocrat (rule by the wealthy\power from wealth) then you haven't been paying much attention to the man. He's been very concerned about the poor as well as the disappearing middle class. He believes that the Constitution is our most important document
Re: (Score:3)
No way. He doesn't hate gays and atheists, says marijuana should not be illegal, and blames Rs for excessive war spending. In other words, some kind of a pinko commie terrorist.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
No. We need the fed. We need the FCC. we need the FAA. We need the FDA and FTC.
We need competent people running them.
We don't need smaller government. We need smarter government. Going on a witch hunt because somehow the fed is offensive is the LAST thing we need.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:4, Insightful)
While some federal government based co-ordination is required for national level standards... i don't think he is against this... he sounds like the kind of person that would say to the states/people "right, you want this to be a federal matter, please pass a constitutional amendment saying so..." and you would get the XXth amendment stating something to the effect of the federal government has the power to regulate radiofrequency spectrum across all states in the USA (for the FCC) or the federal government has the power to regulate all air traffic, civilian and military, inside USA airspace. (for the FAA and nationally coordinated ATC), and so on.
Quite sensible when you think about it... and a lot harder to just keep expanding on with bullshit 'interstate commerce' type nonsense. He seems to just want to make people really think about what the federal government does, and get back to the principle of 'enumerated powers', if the federal government is going to control something, he would probably be fine with whatever it is if it was a constitutional amendment passed by the majority of the states, thus expressing the will of the people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By your post, you have identified yourself as a technocrat, someone who believes that small-scale "experts", devoid of an overall philosophy, are all that are needed to run a government.
The Fed is a ruse to make people believe that the monetary policy disasters of the government aren't the government's fault. There was no need for the Fed when it was created, and things have gotten worse since then.
The FCC's proper function is to register frequency allocations and correct violations thereof. It is presently
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Prayer and thought (Score:3, Insightful)
There's your problem. How about more thinking and less appealing to a non-existent sky-fairy? I truly look forward to the day when politicians can safely declare some sort of rationalist-based intellect instead of this, but I expect it's a long way off.
anti-science (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess it's kind of relevant to Slashdot because of Santorum's strong anti-science stance.
Do the republicans even stand a chance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who has even casually been following the republican primaries can see how incredibly twisted and corrupt the party is. How could anyone still think voting republican is a good idea? Not saying democrat is a great way to vote either, but there are other parties and it's about time for some fresh parties and directions. The old has not served us well for the past 20+ years.
Message from God (Score:5, Insightful)
Then, God told him to quit.
Maybe God should be Romney's running mate.
This just in...Romney's out too. (Score:5, Funny)
In a surprise announcement, Mitt Romney announced that he too is suspending his campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination.
In his shockingly candid speech, Romney said "I only stayed in the race this long to ensure that Rick Santorum didn't get the nomination. Now, with Santorum out of the race, it's time for me to withdraw and leave the contest to the two candidates whose beliefs actually differ from those of Barack Obama".
"The American People deserve a choice of candidates who actually have differing beliefs. The only differences in belief between myself and Barack Obama, is that I'm a Mormon, and he is not. My policies when I was the governor of Massachusetts were virtually identical to President Obama's policies. If I were elected, you would be hard pressed to find anything that I would do differently. Therefore, I'm stepping down to ensure the voters have an actual choice in November."
When asked who he was going to endorse, he declined comment. This story may contain factual errors, and was, in fact, entirely made up. However, as making up facts and reporting on whatever we want is now commonplace, we figured you wouldn't notice.
Hospitalized daughter? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hospital? What do you mean? Aren't you against science, progress and think that god and prayer can do everything for you? Well, stay the fuck out of our hospitals and just leave your daughter at home and pray until she dies, then say it was god's will.
Really, that's what we should do to the anti-science bigots. You are "pro-life"? You want creationism in schools? Great, go live with the Amish. If you enjoy living in the 21th century, embrace science and dump your imaginary god.
Headline tweeted by Jon Stewart (Score:5, Funny)
#TDSBreakingNews @RickSantorum suspends presidential campaign. Dibs on the "Romney Licks Santorum" headline.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing so see here, move one. This is on every media outlet.
Because nerds are somehow immune to the outcome of a national election such as a presidential race.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing so see here, move one. This is on every media outlet.
Because nerds are somehow immune to the outcome of a national election such as a presidential race.....
Certainly the ones outside the States (or at least, mostly immune).
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot is a US-oriented site. It's in the FAQ.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly the ones outside the States (or at least, mostly immune).
Not for as long as ICANN is in U.S. jurisdiction, you're not.
Not really immune (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly the ones outside the States (or at least, mostly immune).
Do you really think that? A dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist Christian that thinks the Apocalypse is a good thing because he gets to meet his BFF Jesus that day, in charge of the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world?
Still think you're immune?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you privy to some quirk of Santorum's eschatology that makes him more dangerous than previous theologically-conservative presidents, none of whom has yet provoked a nuclear holocaust?
Re:Not really immune (Score:5, Informative)
No, not privy to any quirk. But from watching him he's a "true believer", in the tent revival sense of the phrase. He really believes God puts a soul in a fertilized egg, for instance. [lifenews.com] He thinks Satan - the actual literary character Satan - is in charge of colleges, universities, and Protestants. [allisnow.com] He said that the JFK speech about the separation of church and state "almost made him throw up." He believes in intelligent design and doesn't believe in evolution, and tried to make it into law. [wikipedia.org]
It's all well and good to be a Christian, but this guy is NUTS. Like padded room and Thorazine nuts. If anyone was going to push the jolly candy like button, it would be him or someone like him. He can't discern reality well enough to be trusted.
That's my opinion - take it for what it's worth.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Ignorant much (Score:4)
The US has a very long history of actively interfering in other sovereign nations affairs and not just those it has labeled openly as an enemy. It has physically and politically assassinated people from allied nations to steer election results. If you think the US elections have no effect on you just because you don't obediently salute the flag (what does a man do and what does a slave do) you are silly.
Mind you, since I am already burning Karma, I wonder if Santorum, the god-fearing Catholic believes that the illness of his child is gods way of stopping him from becoming president. That is how it works after all if you have the faith. Everything is gods plan. Funny how that never is acknowledged by the religious in defeat. You never see a Muslim going after they lost another war, it was Allah's will. A Catholic when they loose an election, god willed it. There may be no Atheist in hell but there aren't many true believers in defeat either.
Ah well, may I congratulate the American readers with the election of Obama for a second term? Lets face it, the only thing at the moment to prevent that would be the end of the world and that isn't due until just after :P
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if 'News for nerds' is 'News every nerd might be interested in, it becomes meaningless.
Might as well just read CNN.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Interesting)
The comments here will be very different from anything you might encounter on CNN. Actually, I never cared about the comments at CNN. Here they can be interesting.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.jest.com/video/165065/porn-stars-against-santorum [jest.com]
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:4, Funny)
santorum was against porn which effects many nerds!
Only by accident, usually.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Santorum never had a change because mainstream conservative thought really has moved on from the religious-crazy ideas that Santorum brought to the table - those might have worked 20 years ago, but thankfully times change.
Santorum was an embarassment to the GOP. He was the right-wing of our grandfathers, when what we desparately need now is a fiscal conservative, not a social conservative. Of course, finding a fiscal conservative with enough political savvy to avoid making an idiot of himself on camera is proving difficult - I guess once you've been in the game long enough, a less powerful government doesn't seem so appealing any more.
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you can't really compare Ronulus Prime with the real candidates.
You underestimate the passion on the right for "anyone but Romney". The general feeling was that Romney (aka Dole 2.0) will lose to Obama, and so every possible alternative candidate was explored - plus Romney is just kinda creepy. But it's clear now that the majority on the right can't stomache Santorum. The primaries he won were just a matter of timing - the "not Romney wave" has slowly drifted form candidate to candidate over the past 6 months, and whichever non-Romney it was at the time might win some primaries (Cain and Perry peaked before Iowa, though).
Re: (Score:3)
Well, what data do you actaully have? How frequently do you socialize with conservatives, or with religious folk? Spend a lot of time on popular right-wing blogs? There's a very obvious generation gap between the views of the Boomers and older, and the Generation Xers and younger. Heck, even the televangelists are strikingly different - you can instantly tell the age group of their target demographic by how they treat gays. And check the ages of the very social-con cable/radio talking heads.
Until about
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree, let's take a quiz - Which kind of Libertarian are you?
(multiple choice)
A) Pot-smoking College Republican who isn't quite down with Santorum
B) John Bircher concerned about the impending UN/NWO takeover
C) Mad Max-wannabe survivalist
D) Ex-Southern Democrat who wishes Negros were a 'local issue'
E) Believes Ayn Rand was a serious philosopher
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
F. I liked that last alternative and Slashdot got mad at me for giving a single character answer.
So again I say ....
Eff (for the most part, PJ has his annoyances, but high-level, I'm on his side).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:5, Funny)
"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (Score:5, Funny)
The results of elections affect the entire world. Please instruct your ignorance to go fuck itself, and please take time out of your day to send Mr. Frothy-Mix a letter asking him how he thinks people without insurance deal with the hospitalization of a 3-year-old.
Yours,
yours.
Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, I never see "No-Bama" bumper stickers, or this charming one http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/dont-re-nig-in-2012-maker-of-racist-anti-obama-sticker-shuts-down-site/ [go.com]
Get off your high horse.
Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (Score:5, Insightful)
and it wasn't the entire "left" making the Santorum comment was it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In case of Santorum, people can't stand the bigotry of the man himself, not his ideology per se. I mean, we are talking about a politician here who is basically saying that gays are some kind of spawn of Satan that should be banned from doing icky things now and forever. There's no room for rational argument here.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude. You're not getting it.
Santorum quite earned his sobriquet. It characterizes him quite well.
Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (Score:5, Insightful)
Left? Where? Certainly not anyone who supports Obama. His policies are center, at most.
Re:"Nerds don't care about politics" -- tomhath (Score:5, Insightful)
+1. This.
The best Republican prez since Clinton.
Re: (Score:3)
To my dearest genius (Score:5, Insightful)
Its only when the US goes fucking up in other countries (which seems to be quite often lately) do we notice, mostly because we have to go in and help clean up your mess.
Contradicts the first part of the point that you thought you were making:
I know many Americans are too arrogant to grasp this, but most of the world's population don't actually know let alone care about most things that happen in the USA.
Given the above,
Regardless of your personal view of how important US politics may be, even on a global scale, Slashdot is meant to be a Tech. news site. Lets keep it that way please.
Regardless of your clear genius, the political direction of the US Congress, Presidency (and judiciary that they put into power) directs the crafting and execution of legislation that applies to geeks. If your head wasn't preoccupied with spelunking the deeper regions of your colon, you'd be aware of such geek-centric topics as net neutrality, copyright, and piracy, and how US policy is deeply intertwined with global policy.
I don't think you understand what homophobia is. (Score:4, Informative)
I don't understand your outrage. You should praise the beauty that is the living language we call English.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The second part of the statement is "News that matters," and this definitely does.
Lastly, there's nothing in the statement along the lines of "News that has not been covered everywhere else."
Thus, I'm declaring this one fair. Not that anyone was asking.
(* Though it is somewhat a shame he didn't fal
Re:News for Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now that you mention it... why doesn't Neil DeGrasse Tyson run for President? I mean, he can explain the tides; a phenomenon previously only describable by gods!
Re: (Score:3)
Because nobody who would make a good president would want the job and, as we all know, nobody capable of getting themselves elected president should under any circumstances be allowed to do so.
Re:"Suspends"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I was really worried this guy was going to try to keep going. The way he speaks reminds me of Hitler, in both subject matter and candor. This whole business of fighting the good culture warrior fight makes me very nervous. I don't like Romney either, but he doesn't scare the bejeepers out of me the way Santorum did.
I worry at signs that the USA is headed toward fascism, but some browsing on Wikipedia about Germany in the 1920s reveals that we've still got a long way to go yet.
Political murders by gangs of thugs (from all shades of the political spectrum) was almost the norm. Here political murders are still pretty rare, and mostly carried out by individuals or small groups of thugs, rather than by nation-wide organizations.