DescentBB

given that it seems that every emergent anti-Romney seems to last from 5-8 weeks before sinking back below the 10% support mark, how long do you figure it will be before the Romney machine grinds him to bits? Or, do you think Santorum has staying power that Newt, Michelle, Rick Perry, Herman, etc, didn't have?



that said, from a personal point of view, I would love to see Santorum make it to be the live candidate for the GOP. And no, not because I think Obama would beat him like a drum(I think that of all the current GOP choices), but because the resulting campaign would be, I'd guess, less about mudslinging and more about the type of America we wish to live in. That is a debate that needs to be held, as we currently have far to many folks avoiding the true central issue. At some point we have to develop a strong consensus as to whether it's an every man for himself society, or a social contract that provides a minimal level of security for all.
Until that point, we'll just blunder forth, with pendulum swings and gridlock dragging any progress down.

Do you realize the grossness that's being conjured up in many people's minds that have access to Google with the title to your post? Pool of Santorum (snirk), eewwwwww!

You seem to be forgetting super tuesday. If Santorum can keep a head of steam up until March 6 then he may have a shot.

I'm betting he will. Most Republican morals voters are desperately looking for anyone but Romney.

callmeslick wrote:At some point we have to develop a strong consensus as to whether it's an every man for himself society, or a social contract that provides a minimal level of security for all.

Wow, that's a damn good point. I'm impressed by your angle and suddenly and surprisingly find myself wanting the same to happen.

Also, Megadeth.

vision wrote:

callmeslick wrote:At some point we have to develop a strong consensus as to whether it's an every man for himself society, or a social contract that provides a minimal level of security for all.

Wow, that's a damn good point. I'm impressed by your angle and suddenly and surprisingly find myself wanting the same to happen.

The problem with slicks point is defining "minimal"

vision wrote:

callmeslick wrote:At some point we have to develop a strong consensus as to whether it's an every man for himself society, or a social contract that provides a minimal level of security for all.

Wow, that's a damn good point. I'm impressed by your angle and suddenly and surprisingly find myself wanting the same to happen.

Also, Megadeth.

Yep, this is true. In fact, this is exactly what is being argued about in Washington. Obama's way is the same ole crap throughout history, proven time and time and again to cause eventual revolt. "Let them eat cake" nothing new. His plan is to provide minimal support in exchange for a nanny state that makes every decision for us all. An already too small group as it is.

I choose every man for himself. I am pretty confident in the charity of individuals Government is too impersonal and harsh, not taking all things into consideration.

flip wrote:I choose every man for himself. I am pretty confident in the charity of individuals Government is too impersonal and harsh, not taking all things into consideration.

well, maybe Santorum will prevail to the General and you(we) can find out just how large a percentage of your fellow citizens agree.
Don't be shocked(based on a LOT of polling over the past 20 years) to find you are in about a 3-1 minority, and if that gets established once and for all, the nation can actually move forward. The problem has been that we've been distracted, as a nation, by smokescreens, such as 'culture wars', over-reaction to terrorism and sound bite elections to the point where most people don't sit down and look at the basic philosophical options on Election Day. In fact, it could be said that they look at everything BUT the real big picture.

woodchip wrote:The problem with slicks point is defining "minimal"

maybe for you, but it would seem pretty simple:

1 Routine cost-effective healthcare(extra bells and whistles if you wish to pay for them)
2.All citizens should be able to retire at a decent age(70 or less) with a bare-bones liveable income
if they have been able bodied and working.
3. The disabled should be able to live in dignity with adequate housing, care and access to needed facilities
4. The poor and chronically unemployed/unemployable should have unemployment insurance and/or welfare benefits
that provide liveable income and food, and more importantly, training to join/rejoin the job market
5. Affordable housing should be available, at the very least, in any larger town or city.

is that too much to ask of a society as rich as ours, both in terms of capital assets, but also natural resources and
the richest agricultural land on the planet? I think not. And while the above list should add greatly to the harmony and stability
of the society, I see nothing I've listed that should provide disincentive for anyone or any company to wish to work hard and
prosper far beyond 'minimal'.

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.

flip, as you no doubt read in my screed to Thorne, elsewhere, the only reason man survives is that we survive as a group, not as individuals. As individuals in nature, we are toast.

All that is possible with healthy commerce Slick. Obama's intention is to dictate,when, if commerce and trade was just left alone, as each person traded for goods or services it would self balance. Most people are honest and reasonable. Obama has dug in and is trying to assert his view. It's wrong in that big picture.

tunnelcat wrote:Do you realize the grossness that's being conjured up in many people's minds that have access to Google with the title to your post? Pool of Santorum (snirk), eewwwwww!

well, as one who lives more than half his days in Pennsylvania, I am proud to say we cleaned the pool of that reactionary clown after we'd made the mistake of electing him once. It will do the nation good, however, to let all 300 million or so of us take a good look at him, and decide if his world-view is preferable to that of Obama. I know which side I'm putting my money on.....in fact, I did so today, finally, so if any of you all want me to send you a bumper sticker......

flip wrote:All that is possible with healthy commerce Slick.

really? Show me when it's worked out even remotely close to that way.

Obama's intention is to dictate,when, if commerce and trade was just left alone, as each person traded for goods or services it would self balance. Most people are honest and reasonable. Obama has dug in and is trying to assert his view. It's wrong in that big picture.

nonsense, in your world, a handful of folks will run and own EVERYTHING in no time flat. Take a look at Russia, to see your model in action. Quite a few billionaires, with millions absolutely destitute and still sinking.

No. Government is there to regulate and keep fair play. Address it at it arises and keep the playing field level. To maintain justice. Everything else is self regulating. Obama is furthering his own view of how the world should be.

Flip, your own words are contradictory to your point. If the government has the role of regulating fair play and justice, then my suggested way(a more sweeping view than Obamas, based on both observation and one personal conversation with the man) is the only way you can keep that working. Otherwise, as you suggest, you react to stuff as it happens, and that method is both prone to terrible oversights and gross inefficiency. If you put the level baseline in place, all will run far more smoothly.

Let me put it in uncertain terms. I want it the way it was before the unscrupulous twisted things to their advantage. Fat Chance, therefore I adapt

I think the historical point you are aiming for, Flip, is around 22,000 BC or thereabouts.

Therefore, I wish to adapt, myself, to the present day. I think my way addresses that best, and maintains every aspect of the Consitutional framework we have in place.

Yeah, the only point you can move "before" that is before humans started settling down in little mud huts.

Not true. Up until the economic collapse I and everyone I knew were rocking and rolling. Working and spending. Making the wheels go around and having fun producing something. People just have real short memories. I'm not blessed in that area.

flip wrote:Not true. Up until the economic collapse I and everyone I knew were rocking and rolling. Working and spending. Making the wheels go around and having fun producing something. People just have real short memories. I'm not blessed in that area.

I highlighted the key words that completely invalidate your claim. Hell, son, I can tell you that my family and most everyone I grew up around have been doing just fine, thank you, since around 1725, but that doesn't mean I'm oblivious to the lot of those less fortunate. Sheesh, I guess that empathy is another area you aren't blessed in either.......

having established the fact that Flip is only really concerned that he and his pals do OK, let me return to Santorum, if I may.
What I find interesting is that Santorum didn't get more support more quickly. Sure, he did OK in Iowa, but given the GOP base's concern over 'small government' , it would seem that he and Paul are the only real choices. If you remember back a couple of weeks, Romney got skewered for saying he wasn't concerned about the very poor. What I found more interesting were his words that followed....."because for them there is a safety net and if that needs fixing, I'll address it". Now, those are NOT the words of someone who plans on small government. Further, Gingrich doesn't wish to shrink anything, hell, he wants to colonize the moon in under 10 years! He simply wants to spend on different stuff and not pay for it in any way I see laid out. Nothing coherent ever came from Perry or Bachmann or Huntsman, so they offer little. Thus, you are left with Santorum, who seems to want low taxes and very little safety net, but somehow spend on world policing and robust anti-terror tactics, or Paul, who wishes to return to a government about the size of the one Jefferson or Washington oversaw. Come to think of it, Jefferson might be a bit more expansive in his views than Ron Paul. So, why didn't Santorum resonate sooner?

You establish nothing but your ability to live up to your namesake, with pride I assume. I framed houses myself from the ground up. Hard work the whole time. Had nothing given to me. I want anyone who is willing to bust their ass for a living to be ok. Not from some kind of guilt that you and your kind are now feeling for your ill-gotten gains. Now that you have it and it's at your disposal, you wanna show pity. Piss off I'm going to bed.

callmeslick wrote:

maybe for you, but it would seem pretty simple:

1 Routine cost-effective healthcare(extra bells and whistles if you wish to pay for them)
2.All citizens should be able to retire at a decent age(70 or less) with a bare-bones liveable income
if they have been able bodied and working.
3. The disabled should be able to live in dignity with adequate housing, care and access to needed facilities
4. The poor and chronically unemployed/unemployable should have unemployment insurance and/or welfare benefits
that provide liveable income and food, and more importantly, training to join/rejoin the job market
5. Affordable housing should be available, at the very least, in any larger town or city.

is that too much to ask of a society as rich as ours, both in terms of capital assets, but also natural resources and
the richest agricultural land on the planet? I think not. And while the above list should add greatly to the harmony and stability
of the society, I see nothing I've listed that should provide disincentive for anyone or any company to wish to work hard and
prosper far beyond 'minimal'.

1) Obamacare has already been shown to be intrusive and not cost effective. What you envision is a England style health care system where people wind up pulling their own teeth out because they have to wait so long to see a dentist.
2) We have that now. It's called social security and whose money that paid for it has been squandered and in danger of going broke
3)Don't know where you live but the disabled are taken care of thru social security and medicare
4)Unemployment insurance IS provided as is welfare and food stamps
5)Yeah been tried and caused the biggest meltdown in this countries history short of the great depression

Since your great harmonizer took office, I've seen nothing but class warfare spouted and more food stamps issued than ever before. This country is no longer rich. I suggest you read TB post about the size of our debt and unfunded liabilities again instead of just commentating on Greece.
No matter how much this country takes in will payoff the debt we have. Moodies has already downgraded us once and will do so again. The committee set up to manage our debt failed to reach any agreement so tell me who will wave the magic wand to get this countries finances under control?

woody, your point by points are ludicrous, and frankly miss my point. Not hard to do when all you do is parrot right wing lies in every point you try to make. As for the supposed rise in class warfare, all you are seeing is people waking up after being fleeced forever. What is wrong with that? The Gingrich-esque comment about food stamps is pretty funny, as it was years of GOP ideals that got us into the economic mess that requires that so many people need them......or, would you be so stupid as to suggest that Obama in any way, shape or form had a hand in the economic crash or any of the job losses. One could make a stretch case for jobs not coming back quickly enough, but people are on food stamps because they lost the jobs, and that has nothing to do with Obama. Finally, I went into Greece on the other thread precisely because the US is not Greece, and won't be, anytime soon. The Moody's downgrade had more to do with politics(the Dems cited bogus bond ratings as one cause of the housing bubble) than any reflection of anything serious on the Greek/Irish/Icelandic level. We can and likely will emerge from this debt level if normal economic cycles follow course and we restore sensible taxation rates. Sure, there are items that need to be addressed, like raising the income level for Social Security taxation from a ludicrous 110K and putting a national medical insurance system into place alongside reforming our medical delivery systems to cut costs(we are WAY too expensive for the level of success we have in medical care). As I said, let the naton decide which type of nation they want to have, one of greater good for all, or a path to oligarchy. Either way, I'll be fine.......it is the people Flip describes(hard working laborers) that I worry about.

flip wrote:You establish nothing but your ability to live up to your namesake, with pride I assume.

what namesake? Stonewall Jackson?(if you knew my real name and family, that might make sense)

I framed houses myself from the ground up. Hard work the whole time. Had nothing given to me. I want anyone who is willing to bust their ass for a living to be ok.

well, if we follow the political path you espouse, you're fecked. Oddly, I want the same thing you claim to. Only difference is that my plan might get you there in time.

Not from some kind of guilt that you and your kind are now feeling for your ill-gotten gains. Now that you have it and it's at your disposal, you wanna show pity.

nothing ill gotten about a hundred-fifty years of tobacco planting, and two hundred more investing, owning three packing plants and a bank. We played the game and won. All that differs from others is that we were here way before most other families, and those that got here first made the rules.
What is bizarre is that 'the people' have never given that fact enough thought to alter those rules a bit to make the playing field fairer. Oh, and I'm not showing pity, I'm showing empathy. And not so much for you.....I suspect you and the people you knew were rocking and rolling, as you put it, with money you didn't really have and not bothering to plan for the downturns that come with any economy. Therein lies the difference between you and the wealthy. The wealthy have the sense to smell a rat and bail and leave folks like you holding the bag, because you were so busy 'rocking and rolling' to notice the s*** approaching the fan. Sorry to sound harsh, but those are the facts. Ask anyone with old money.....I'll bet you will discover that their family made money big-time during the recessions of the late 19th century, made money during the Depression and so forth. Personally, in the 20 years I've had a hand in managing my family's estate, the past 3 years were BY FAR the most profitable. I'm not driven by guilt, but a sense of fairness, along with a wish not to see a naton my family has been part of since 1672 turn into a chaotic oligarchy.

Piss off I'm going to bed.

sleep well

Lol, hard-working laborers. I know I've touched on your lack of experience elsewhere :p. Fact is, with my hard-working labor, I never made less than 1500 dollars a week, hell I've made that in 2 days on a ranch house. Fact is, people's arrogance and lack of experience causes mis-guided assumptions. The whole idea initially was to let the illegals have the jobs that nobody else wants. You know, the candies who won't walk a 2x4 wall 3 stories in the air, or drag plywood up a 12/12 roof because their chickenshits. So let the illegals have them. Very kind and gracious of your fellow peers Slick, only problem is that was my job, very lucrative, free as hell to do what I wanted, and made me physically strong as hell. A tri-fecta. Since most of your knowledge of my life comes from 30 second bits on TV and what you read or hear, your good intentions ruined my livelihood. People with money should stay out of politics, especially inherited money.

EDIT: Why should they stay out?, because the have already won. They should go buy a nice golfcart, with some gold-lined cup holders and stay out of the way so others can succeed. Good fortune will make a fool look wise.

if you weren't selling houses to people with money, built and financed by people with money, you wouldn't have a job, now would you? Another whiner, it would seem, about how Mexicans took your job. They out-competed you on price and stayed even on quality. Welcome to the global economy, which came about as inevitable progress. Quit whining and learn something, or prepare to spend the rest of your life competing in a race to the lowest pay possible, should your GOP pals get into control of things.

Lies. You know, I was listening to Obama last night at Boeing. Even after all this time I still havn't figured out exactly what I think about him. There are extenuating circumstances these days, lol, but you don't help him at all Slick. None.

Must be a proud history with 150 years of dealing carcinogens.

Heretic wrote:Must be a proud history with 150 years of dealing carcinogens.

of course, in 1672 or thereabouts, no one even knew about that. Hell, most people didn't live long enough to GET lung cancer.
The entire Virginia colony was built on the tobacco trade, in fact tobacco was the sole currency of the colony until around 1720.
All the records of my family members early land purchases list pounds of tobacco as the form of payment. I am shocked that you didn't jump on the whole slave ownership thing while you busied yourself trashtalking. No matter, you contributed nothing to counter my basic point, as usual.

I am shocked that you didn't jump on the whole slave ownership thing while you busied yourself trashtalking

We try to keep things honest around here.

flip wrote:Lies. You know, I was listening to Obama last night at Boeing. Even after all this time I still havn't figured out exactly what I think about him. There are extenuating circumstances these days, lol, but you don't help him at all Slick. None.

I just want to clarify this much: I have NO sympathy for your plight. You reaped the benefits of an unrealistic boom, apparently didn't save enough to handle the downturn, and now spend your time blaming all the wrong people. I do have concerns about people born poor, and destined to stay poor due to lack of educational opportunities. I care about people with marginal incomes who cannot afford healthcare, which can take a middle class family and make them poor quickly. The bottom line with the economy at hand is this: we went from a nation of savers to a nation of borrowers(not the govt, the public) and a nation which craves unrealistically cheap goods. Feeding these desires wouldn't have been possible under the regulations before Reagan, but thanks to the foresight of GOP policies around 'deregulation', folks were able to get ready credit cards with high limits, take out home equity loans and borrow for cars and other stuff they couldn't afford. Now, we pay the price.
Don't worry, Flip, Obama is not as harsh or judgemental as I am. Few Progressives are. They tend to view folks who made bad choices as victims of big, bad corporations. I don't agree with that tack. Where I do agree with Obama and others is that financial regulation has to be rebuilt, a safety net must be provided for those that need it and that those with the means ought to pay their fair share. You, Heretic and others seem more than willing to laugh at my inherited assets, but why do you think my tax rate ought to be capped at only 15% on the income from those assets(not to mention the writeoffs I get for 'agricultural use' , environmental
abatement and the like)?

Problem is that's all lies. The people that had those houses sold to them were paying for them for the most part, until some crooks screwed everything up. They had jobs and houses and everything would have been fine if not for liars and cheats. The same ones who got bailed out. Your view of things is skewed at best.

EDIT:OK, your a little more extreme than obama even and that makes my point. I do see Obama maybe as being benevolent and being used by wealthy people to achieve their own ends. Maybe he's hand in hand, I don't know. It's obvious you can see we are knee-deep in a new age now. Your idea is to build and establish an Oligarchy here in this country.

Or at least your full intention is to strengthen it.

flip wrote:Problem is that's all lies. The people that had those houses sold to them were paying for them for the most part, until some crooks screwed everything up

how do you figure that??
.

They had jobs and houses and everything would have been fine if not for liars and cheats. The same ones who got bailed out. Your view of things is skewed at best.

well, thanks to de-regulation, the larger banks DID get pretty unscrupulous, as did Real Estate agents. That still doesn't let folks off the hook for buying things they really couldn't, realistically, afford. What you don't get is that the concept of 'what I can afford' in this society is WAY, WAY, out of whack. Families with 90K total incomes think they should be living in 400K houses with a couple of
30K cars in the garage and then take that trip to St. Thomas in the winter. Insane. Hell, I don't do that with a 840-something credit rating and a freaking trust fund. Very few people outside of traditionally wealthy families in this country have a clue about personal finance. That unscrupulous sharpies took advantage of them reflects on both the need for regulation to prevent the crooks, but also the abject stupidity of most of the victims, IMHO.

EDIT:OK, your a little more extreme than obama even and that makes my point. I do see Obama maybe as being benevolent and being used by wealthy people to achieve their own ends. Maybe he's hand in hand, I don't know. It's obvious you can see we are knee-deep in a new age now. Your idea is to build and establish an Oligarchy here in this country.

Or at least your full intention is to strengthen it.

actually, my intent is to reestablish the society we had in the 1950s or so, and prevent an all-out oligarchy, as I don't wish to live in that sort of (see:Russia or Mexico) world.

Who the hell am I talking to over here? Maybe Obama is a rube. We are right now at the crossroads. Decision making time, and your trying to push it towards an Oligarchy by trashing individualism and at the same time saying otherwise. You actually think your wise because of your good fortune and to me you sound like a fortune cookie. I wouldn't follow you to Ryan's for the All-You-Can-Eat buffet.

flip wrote:Who the hell am I talking to over here? Maybe Obama is a rube. We are right now at the crossroads. Decision making time, and your trying to push it towards an Oligarchy by trashing individualism and at the same time saying otherwise. You actually think your wise because of your good fortune and to me you sound like a fortune cookie. I wouldn't follow you to Ryan's for the All-You-Can-Eat buffet.

every man for himself individualism leads, inexorably to oligarchy. Why? Here's the best analogy I can give you: it's like a poker game. If you have 8 people in the game, and 7 of them have 200 bucks and the 8th has 5000 dollars, the guy with the most money eventually plows the others under, unless his luck is REALLY bad. If you go and unleash a system with no social safety net and every man for himself, the rich will grind you to a pulp in a way that will make the present US reality PALE by comparison. You want to try out the system you espouse? Move to Russia.

Jeez, that ★■◆● don't work on me Slick. If government would keep it's head out of it except arbitrate complaints and enforce anti-trust laws. People trade for goods and services out of necessity. I've noticed too many times you miss the point so it's no wonder, but I never said every man for himself. I said for government to get out of the way so the wheels of trade and commerce can begin turning again. Obama's first presidency has been suffocating.