• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

Pardalis said:
But again, why bring up blacks when the full quotes clearly shows he's talking about them, the crowd, the white Iowans?
Click to expand...

You're repeating yourself.

The full quote shows he was talking about public spending on the needy. He said that he didn't want to make the lives of the people in question better "by giving them somebody else's money".

So in fact, he's talking about at least two sets of people: those whose lives are made better by taxpayer financed welfare and those whose taxes support these programs.

Your repeated claim that he was only talking about the people in the audience simply isn't true.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I did just now.

I'm with Jenk there. Maybe Santorum tried to stop his comment midstream, but Paul and Santorum both have made statements reflecting a belief that blacks are looking for that free lunch.


But I'm fine with your move from 'not black' to 'could have been'. :)
Click to expand...
I love TYT because they are skeptical and objective and are willing to change their minds. It isn't an echo chamber. They don't kiss anyone's ass. Certainly not Obama's and I support Obama. They often debate points and end up disagreeing. When I found them I was still leaning to the right. I didn't like Moore, didn't much care for most of the pundits on the left. I found Olberman more intellectually honest than most on the right. But TYT, Cenk is pro business (so long as it is regulated and the foxes aren't allowed to guard the hen house), pro personal responsibility (not that Dems by and large aren't) it's just that he makes it clear that he doesn't believe in a sense of entitlement (again, most Democrats don't). Now, I'll grant you that my view point is new and perhaps the left has always sought to make that case. If so then I think they are failing in framing the argument. It's not made clear enough IMO and TYT makes it clear.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Again, why not? (Language really does allow us to speak of things other than the people we're addressing.)
Click to expand...

Read the full quote again, it's complete out of place to suddenly refer to blacks.

Do you deny that he was talking about low income people and people on welfare to a crowd that was mostly middle class (and presumably NOT on welfare)?
Click to expand...
So what? How many Black people are there in Iowa?

Skeptic Ginger said:
Because Santorum was talking about "them" to the crowd of "us".
Click to expand...

"she told me that the state of Iowa is going to get fined if they don't sign up more people under the Medicaid program. They're just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote."

Who is he referring to with "more people", "of you", "upon them" and "your vote"?

Where do blacks fit in?
 
Last edited:
Moss said:
Funny how that seems to be a mainstay of conservative politics everywhere. Exactly the same narrative is given in Germany. And what is the solution? Cutting the support of the already poor and "liberating the job market" that it is easier to fire people and threaten them with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, follow the money. I don't know about Germany but who pays for the campaigns of these politicians? Poor people? Hell no. It's the super rich and by god they can't get enough money. So, make govt the problem and get politicians to claim that it is their job (the politicians job) that is the problem and the best way for GOP politicians to help is to either do nothing for the poor or do things like increase taxes on the poor, take away unemployment, social security, medicare. Damn, just imagine how rich poor people will then be when there are no longer govt services. It will be utopia I tell ya. Business will have so much money not having to pick up the tab for the poor that they will create jobs just because. Jobs everywhere. There will be so much damn money the rich will have no choice but to put people to work for lack of anything else to do with their money. This scenario includes a bunny, some colored eggs and a boy who never grows old but lives in a land that can be found by heading toward the second star to the right, straight on till morning. And let's be honest here, the fact is this, there are poor people simply because the rich do not have enough money. Please, won't you help the rich today? Send a donation to the GOP. Help get them elected. Because without them the rich won't be rich enough and you can go to hell.

The Rich Got Richer

The Congressional Budget Office released a study this week that revealed a huge shift in the nation's wealth distribution. The top 1 percent of the country's earners more than doubled their take of the nation's wealth in just 30 years. James Fallows, national correspondent with The Atlantic, joins weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz to discuss that story and others from the past week.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
So in fact, he's talking about at least two sets of people: those whose lives are made better by taxpayer financed welfare and those whose taxes support these programs.
Click to expand...

No, he's talking about Iowans, see:

"and she told me that the state of Iowa is going to get fined if they don't sign up more people under the Medicaid program. "

State of Iowa= Iowans

"I don't want to make people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money, and provide for themselves and their families"

He's talking about Iowans in general, their lives, their families.
 
Pardalis said:
Read the full quote again, it's complete out of place to suddenly refer to blacks.
Click to expand...
I agree the comment about blacks was out of left field. I just find the explanation he had blacks subconsciously in mind (some evidence) more plausible than he stumbled on his words (no evidence).

Pardalis said:
So what? How many Black people are there in Iowa?

"she told me that the state of Iowa is going to get fined if they don't sign up more people under the Medicaid program. They're just pushing harder and harder to get more and more of you dependent upon them so they can get your vote."

Who is he referring to with "more people", "of you", "upon them" and "your vote"?

Where do blacks fit in?
Click to expand...
It's how the narrative is sold. You don't expect the audience to hear, "I'm getting welfare I should not be getting". You expect and get the audience to hear, "my tax dollars are being spent on the underserving parasites."

I agree with the conclusions this was an unconscious slip up, not some attempt to consciously stir racial discord to get votes. But the narrative, "the rich already pay too much, the undeserving poor are the reason for government waste" is a conscious campaign narrative.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
I just find the explanation he had blacks subconsciously in mind (some evidence) more plausible than he stumbled on his words (no evidence).
Click to expand...

Are you a psychoanalyst?

Skeptic Ginger said:
It's how the narrative is sold. You don't expect the audience to hear, "I'm getting welfare I should not be getting". You expect and get the audience to hear, "my tax dollars are being spent on the underserving parasites."
Click to expand...

That's your opinion.
 
Last edited:
Funny how amateurs can claim to be able to analyze other people's psyche at a distance.
 
leftysergeant said:
Not all religions consider homosexuality a sin.
Click to expand...
Are those religions that also do not recognize sin?
Playing the devil's advocate, are their any religions that think it is a virtue or acceptable?
Apart from Liberalsim, that is.

Tell me what religions you are talking about. I am holding on to hope that you can actually back up the things you say.
 
bikerdruid said:
you do realize that by arguing with them about it, and claiming that they are wrong, you are doing the same thing, right?
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming they are wrong, I'm claiming they have no business to make those determinations.
 
Pardalis said:
Are you a psychoanalyst?
Click to expand...
Pardalis said:
Funny how amateurs can claim to be able to analyze other people's psyche at a distance.
Click to expand...
Nurse Practitioners in this state do have a license covering some skills of evaluating a person's behavior so amateur would not be true in my case.

However, I am relying more on self taught expertise in the area of political marketing and in how language and narratives are used to manipulate voters when it comes to discussing the campaign message currently coming from the right wing.


Pardalis said:
That's your opinion.
Click to expand...
Of course. But I believe I have at least presented a supporting case for my observations here.



Randman has correctly pointed out this side step has run its course. So how about addressing the broader issues, what do you see in this guy worth defending?
 
Bill Thompson said:
Are those religions that also do not recognize sin?
Playing the devil's advocate, are their any religions that think it is a virtue or acceptable?
Apart from Liberalsim, that is.

Tell me what religions you are talking about. I am holding on to hope that you can actually back up the things you say.
Click to expand...
Here, LMGTFY.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Nurse Practitioners in this state do have a license covering some skills of evaluating a person's behavior so amateur would not be true in my case.
Click to expand...

Nursing and psychoanalysis are two different fields.

An architect isn't an engineer.

However, I am relying more on self taught expertise
Click to expand...
I couldn't care less about your self-taught "expertise". Your personal opinion on this man's subconscious mechanisms is of no interest, and can't be used as "evidence".

what do you see in this guy worth defending?
Click to expand...
I seem to disagree with him on many issues, and I wouldn't vote for him if I were American. I just dislike lies being propagated, regardless of who is being lied about.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Funny how amateurs can claim to be able to analyze other people's psyche at a distance.
Click to expand...

Humans have indeed evolved the capacity for forming a theory of mind. Language has greatly facilitated that capacity.

Nothing supernatural, and nothing that requires a "professional". In fact, as voters in a form of democracy, it's our civic duty to "analyze other people's psyche at a distance".
 
Bill Thompson said:
Playing the devil's advocate, are their any religions that think it is a virtue or acceptable?
Apart from Liberalsim, that is.

Tell me what religions you are talking about. I am holding on to hope that you can actually back up the things you say.
Click to expand...

  • Unitarian Universalism
  • United Church of Christ
  • Alliance of Baptists
  • Reform Judaism
  • Reconstructionist Judaism
For starters...
 
Pardalis said:
Are you a psychoanalyst?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that psychoanalysts should get more than one vote to every vote of an "amateur"?

Or are you suggesting that we lack the capacity to judge motives and thought patterns (and even "the character") of a political candidate and that we ought not have the authority to do so?

Should we be prohibited from relying on our evaluations of these matters and be required to rely on a professional psychoanalysis of the candidates?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom