Conquer Club

Rick Santorum is steadfast in his platform of only representing the wealthiest one percent of Americans.

What do you guys think? Should Rick Santorum stop trying to run your life with his big brother ideas for government? Under Rick Santorum, only he'd get to decide who gets married! Only he'd get to decide what medicine women are allowed to take! Under Rick Santorum, only the rich would have a voice in this country and only they would benefit.

I say cut off his penis and feed it to Es!

Isn't it only right that the wealthy decide foreign policy, corporate regulations and legislation? They are the ones who pay for campaigns and elections after all and certainly are deserving of a return on their investment. So isn't Santorum merely making his case that he's the guy to maintain the status quo by keeping it simple and pointing out that donations sent his direction is be money well spent.

i thought that capitalism says that the market gives money to those who deserve it? so by this free market logic this wealthy 1% are the very best of the country, those most able and deserving. because capitalism says more money is more worth. the market gives money to those who deserve it. so it would make more sense to listen to them than to those at the bottom unable to make wealth for themselves.

the wealthiest 10% of usa citizens control 80% of the wealth. this therefore means they should have 80% of the say? this is capitalism.

if equal say is what you want then the first step is to make everyone equal. it is ludicrous to ask for a system of great inequality (school, medicine, house, wealth) but then all people are seen as equal by the politicians. if you want all people with equal vote - make the person equal. then the vote becomes equal.

the carpet man wrote: if you want all people with equal vote - make the person equal. then the vote becomes equal.

About the only way a government can "make everyone equal" is to make everyone equally poor......

And a "free market" doesn't just give money to the most deserving. It rewards wise investment and punishes poor investment. The government intervened and didn't let the market punish those who made bad choices and bailed out the bastards who risked foolishly. The "free market" was subverted. Then again we don't really have a free market and since especially 2008 it's gotten a hell of a lot worse.
A free market would have dealt harshly with those bastards that put the economy at risk had it been allowed to.

carpetman wrote:the wealthiest 10% of usa citizens control 80% of the wealth. this therefore means they should have 80% of the say? this is capitalism.

No, in true capitalism it's the consumer who has all the say and all the power.

oVo wrote:Isn't it only right that the wealthy decide foreign policy, corporate regulations and legislation? They are the ones who pay for campaigns and elections after all and certainly are deserving of a return on their investment. So isn't Santorum merely making his case that he's the guy to maintain the status quo by keeping it simple and pointing out that donations sent his direction is be money well spent.

Santorum is a corrupt bastard and if he by some chance wins the nomination he will get trounced badly in the general election. Donations sent his way is money down a bottomless pit. And with a bit siphoned off for himself that is.....

the carpet man wrote:i thought that capitalism says that the market gives money to those who deserve it? so by this free market logic this wealthy 1% are the very best of the country, those most able and deserving. because capitalism says more money is more worth. the market gives money to those who deserve it. so it would make more sense to listen to them than to those at the bottom unable to make wealth for themselves.

the wealthiest 10% of usa citizens control 80% of the wealth. this therefore means they should have 80% of the say? this is capitalism.

if equal say is what you want then the first step is to make everyone equal. it is ludicrous to ask for a system of great inequality (school, medicine, house, wealth) but then all people are seen as equal by the politicians. if you want all people with equal vote - make the person equal. then the vote becomes equal.

If you point at outcomes and focus on an economic system like capitalism, you still have to factor in the political and the social. Otherwise, you'll lead yourself to a false conclusion.

patches70 wrote:

the carpet man wrote: if you want all people with equal vote - make the person equal. then the vote becomes equal.

About the only way a government can "make everyone equal" is to make everyone equally poor......

And a "free market" doesn't just give money to the most deserving. It rewards wise investment and punishes poor investment.

ONLY in terms of making money.

Money is not a good judge, at all of what is best for people, for the world, for anything except the single individual who wants that money. So, yeah.. pretending that worshipping money is some wonderful thing and that the goverment's job is just to stand back and do nothing is not just stupid, its evil.

The government is the sole protector of average people from the abuses despots in power have ALWAYS shown themselves to be, eventually. That money is somehow supposed to make people better individuals is one of the most stupid ideas anyone has ever come up with in all time

Well.. maybe sacraficing virgins is up there, but this actually harms far, far more people.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Money is not a good judge at all, of what is best for people,

The best thing to determine what is best for people, a person, an individual, is the person themselves. YOU cannot know what is best for someone else. Just like someone else cannot know what is best for you. And just the same that government cannot know what is best for an individual.

Do you need the government to tell you what is best for you?
Do you need your neighbor to tell you what is best for you?
Do you need anyone to force you to do what's best for you in their eyes?

I'm more willing to let individuals determine for themselves what is best for themselves.

And when did I say money is a good judge of what is best for people? Money is just a thing, a tool. Nothing more. Some people are scumbags either rich or poor and money has nothing to do with it. Greed takes lots of other forms than just love of money. Money itself is not good or evil, it's just a medium to trade goods and services. That's all it is.

And this is hilarious-

PLAYER wrote:The government is the sole protector of average people from the abuses despots in power have ALWAYS shown themselves to be

So, you are saying, that the very people in power (government) who by your own admission "ALWAYS" abuse their power and become despots, are the ones who are the sole protector of average people?
Damn, we're all screwed then, aren't we? LMAO

PLAYER57832 wrote:

patches70 wrote:

the carpet man wrote: if you want all people with equal vote - make the person equal. then the vote becomes equal.

About the only way a government can "make everyone equal" is to make everyone equally poor......

And a "free market" doesn't just give money to the most deserving. It rewards wise investment and punishes poor investment.

ONLY in terms of making money.

Money is not a good judge, at all of what is best for people, for the world, for anything except the single individual who wants that money. So, yeah.. pretending that worshipping money is some wonderful thing and that the goverment's job is just to stand back and do nothing is not just stupid, its evil.

The government is the sole protector of average people from the abuses despots in power have ALWAYS shown themselves to be, eventually. That money is somehow supposed to make people better individuals is one of the most stupid ideas anyone has ever come up with in all time

Well.. maybe sacraficing virgins is up there, but this actually harms far, far more people.

Who's pretending this?

BigBallinStalin wrote:If you point at outcomes and focus on an economic system like capitalism, you still have to factor in the political and the social. Otherwise, you'll lead yourself to a false conclusion.

what exactly in my post do you refer to?

pimpdave wrote:Rick Santorum is steadfast in his platform of only representing the wealthiest one percent of Americans.

What do you guys think? Should Rick Santorum stop trying to run your life with his big brother ideas for government? Under Rick Santorum, only he'd get to decide who gets married! Only he'd get to decide what medicine women are allowed to take! Under Rick Santorum, only the rich would have a voice in this country and only they would benefit.

To be fair, those ARE the principles our nation was founded on. Freedom for all property-owning white men!

spurgistan wrote:To be fair, those ARE the principles our nation was founded on. Freedom for all property-owning white men!

Do you even know WHY only land-owning men were allowed to vote? It is because they believed that those who would be directly affected by the laws should be the ones voting their representatives into office. If you didn't own land, it didn't really matter what you felt should happen in the government because the laws they would pass wouldn't actually affect you.

Furthermore, even if you use today's values to look back and determine that all of America's founders were evil (or whatever word you want to use) because they didn't immediately allow every person everything, you would be ignoring all the great things that the Constitution provided. The US was the FIRST modern country to even allow their citizens to enjoy freedoms and a say in the government. Everywhere else was run by divine-right and noblemen. Even allowing just land-owning white men to vote was way ahead of everywhere else. And they would have allowed more people to vote or at least not be slaves if they could have still ratified the Constitution. But they could not do both, so they designed the Constitution to be amended in the future in order to provide those changes.

Night Strike wrote:

spurgistan wrote:To be fair, those ARE the principles our nation was founded on. Freedom for all property-owning white men!

Do you even know WHY only land-owning men were allowed to vote? It is because they believed that those who would be directly affected by the laws should be the ones voting their representatives into office. If you didn't own land, it didn't really matter what you felt should happen in the government because the laws they would pass wouldn't actually affect you.

Furthermore, even if you use today's values to look back and determine that all of America's founders were evil (or whatever word you want to use) because they didn't immediately allow every person everything, you would be ignoring all the great things that the Constitution provided. The US was the FIRST modern country to even allow their citizens to enjoy freedoms and a say in the government. Everywhere else was run by divine-right and noblemen. Even allowing just land-owning white men to vote was way ahead of everywhere else. And they would have allowed more people to vote or at least not be slaves if they could have still ratified the Constitution. But they could not do both, so they designed the Constitution to be amended in the future in order to provide those changes.

*black land owners could vote, as well as serve in government, which they did, even in the late 1700's, our first years.

Night Strike wrote:

spurgistan wrote:To be fair, those ARE the principles our nation was founded on. Freedom for all property-owning white men!

Do you even know WHY only land-owning men were allowed to vote? It is because they believed that those who would be directly affected by the laws should be the ones voting their representatives into office. If you didn't own land, it didn't really matter what you felt should happen in the government because the laws they would pass wouldn't actually affect you.

Which is terrible, stupid logic at best. The idea that a law can't affect someone that doesn't own land doesn't even make sense.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

spurgistan wrote:To be fair, those ARE the principles our nation was founded on. Freedom for all property-owning white men!

Do you even know WHY only land-owning men were allowed to vote? It is because they believed that those who would be directly affected by the laws should be the ones voting their representatives into office. If you didn't own land, it didn't really matter what you felt should happen in the government because the laws they would pass wouldn't actually affect you.

Which is terrible, stupid logic at best. The idea that a law can't affect someone that doesn't own land doesn't even make sense.

Well, when the government was first started, the only taxes in existence were on products (tariffs) and property. It was believed that only those who owned property should be able to vote because they were the only ones paying taxes. If everyone could vote, then those who didn't own land could elect people who would force land-owners to hand over portions of their property. Sounds quite familiar to what is really happening today.

Night Strike wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

spurgistan wrote:To be fair, those ARE the principles our nation was founded on. Freedom for all property-owning white men!

Do you even know WHY only land-owning men were allowed to vote? It is because they believed that those who would be directly affected by the laws should be the ones voting their representatives into office. If you didn't own land, it didn't really matter what you felt should happen in the government because the laws they would pass wouldn't actually affect you.

Which is terrible, stupid logic at best. The idea that a law can't affect someone that doesn't own land doesn't even make sense.

Well, when the government was first started, the only taxes in existence were on products (tariffs) and property. It was believed that only those who owned property should be able to vote because they were the only ones paying taxes. If everyone could vote, then those who didn't own land could elect people who would force land-owners to hand over portions of their property. Sounds quite familiar to what is really happening today.

You're a funny sonofagun. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be intentional.

Rick Santorum hates poor people even more than Mitt Romney!

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/16/news/ec ... ce=cnn_bin

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- White House hopeful Rick Santorum lags behind both his 2012 competitors and wealthy Americans in general when it comes to charitable giving, according to tax documents.

Santorum gave $81,500 to charity over the past four years, or 2.2% of the more than $3.6 million in total income he earned since leaving the Senate, the documents showed.

Why is this guy telling anyone what to do according to religion when he doesn't even tithe at 10%?

Santorum's tweet is specifically referring to the money you pay out of your pockets. It doesn't refer to what is done with your tax money. The government has no say in how you spend your own money. At least they didn't until this health care insurance mandate was passed. Now, if it stands, they can pass laws that govern ANY purchase they do or do not want you to make.

Night Strike wrote:Santorum's tweet is specifically referring to the money you pay out of your pockets. It doesn't refer to what is done with your tax money. The government has no say in how you spend your own money. At least they didn't until this health care insurance mandate was passed. Now, if it stands, they can pass laws that govern ANY purchase they do or do not want you to make.

Car insurance.

pimpdave wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Santorum's tweet is specifically referring to the money you pay out of your pockets. It doesn't refer to what is done with your tax money. The government has no say in how you spend your own money. At least they didn't until this health care insurance mandate was passed. Now, if it stands, they can pass laws that govern ANY purchase they do or do not want you to make.

Car insurance.

Don't own your own car.

Oh ok

I'm serious. I thought we already had this debate. If you don't to pay for car insurance, don't own a car. OR, make enough money to prove that you have the assets to cover the costs of a wreck and you don't have to buy insurance. But with the health care mandate, you are FORCED to buy insurance simply for being alive, with no option or ability to opt out. Those things are fundamentally different.