Santorum on College

[lucrezaborgia]

This is what happens when intellectualism meets fundyville:

http://conservapedia.com/Black_hole

[RobMille]

Jaw dropping. Unable to think or speak. WTH

[lucrezaborgia]

(02-26-2012 06:38 PM)RobMille Wrote:  Jaw dropping. Unable to think or speak. WTH

http://conservapedia.com/Moral_relativism

Quote:Moral relativity is a philosophy that states there is no absolute Right or Wrong, and that anyone can freely use his own conscience to decide what is moral. A moral relativist will not say that theft or murder is wrong, because he believes it is up to the murderer or thief to decide whether his behavior is justified. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." (Proverbs 14:12)

Moral relativity and related foolish thinking is what allows liberals to support abortion, gay rights, and drug abuse. Moral relativity erodes principled self-defense and thereby leads to misguided demands for gun control as well as psychiatric problems resulting from a lack of mental self-defense.

While the idea of moral relativity exists independently of (and substantially predates) the scientific theory of relativity, moral relativists seized on the theory of relativity to legitimize their views. Historians such as Paul Johnson wrote about how the theory of relativity caused a sea change, justified or not, in 20th century thought.

Ummmm....

[Phatchick]

(02-26-2012 05:48 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  This is what happens when intellectualism meets fundyville:

http://conservapedia.com/Black_hole

OMFG! It's hard to believe that site isn't just a massive example of Poe's Law. I'd laugh if it wasn't so sad.

[Apathetic or whatever]

http://conservapedia.com/Marxism

Scroll down to the See Also section. It is too funny!


Personally, I find Santorum scary. I am torn between wanting the loon to get the R's nomination so the D's can have an easy election victory and being frightened of him actually winning.

[dthatcher]

The chances of the incumbant staying in office have everything to do with the incumbant and little with the challenger. Obama has the cards stacked in his favor, here. He's been playing a lot of rope-a-dope with the Republicans lately which I find amusing. The economy is better, relatively speaking. Unless Obama gets into some major scandal I see no problems with him keeping the White House.
My coworker reminded me that Obama was really great debater in 2008. Any of the current crop of Republican "candidates" (I use the term loosely) want to debate him, Obama will have them in a straitjacket calling for mommy, or else have them spouting nonsense so obvious everyone will be embarrassed.
2016 is going to be an election that will get mighty interesting, and it or 2020 will be the most important presidential election of our lifetimes, outside of 1980.

[lucrezaborgia]

I don't understand the importance of debates these days. They don't really do much to show us how good a president will be. Their only purpose these days seems to be to give the kiss of death via soundbite to the more stupid of the candidates.

[dramaturge]

(02-27-2012 02:59 PM)lucrezaborgia Wrote:  I don't understand the importance of debates these days. They don't really do much to show us how good a president will be. Their only purpose these days seems to be to give the kiss of death via soundbite to the more stupid of the candidates.

One of the problems is that debates, particularly the primary debates, aren't run like debates. If they were, they would be more useful. As it is, the large part of the time, the candidates don't all even answer the same questions. This plethora of "candidates arguing meaninglessly over talking points for a couple of hours" events barely qualify as anything like a debate. They really are just a chance for soundbites and crazy talk. Every one of them seems to be merely a vehicle for oneupsmanship more than anything else.

Once it gets down to the real campaign debates, it will be a better scene. Then there will be more like actual policy questions that are answered by both candidates. And they will be watched by a larger swath of the public since they'll be televised on a major networks in prime time, etc. I think the biggest thing you learn from debates (the real ones, not whatever it is that's happening on the GOP side this year) is not so much whether a candidate will be a good president; but (and it is important) whether they can clearly communicate their platform and goals, can demonstrate examples of what they've done in the past that attests to those goals, and can thoroughly defend why their platform and goal is the right approach. The debate format offers a different perspective than stump speeches because of the juxtaposed answers and the opportunity for challenge.

All that said, I feel the need again to point out that what's happening on the GOP side this year is some kind of weird round-table experience with the softballiest of softball questions. It's a crazy train of near chaos as each candidate tries to become the most popular by embracing the most polarizing position of them all, whatever that might be.

[lucrezaborgia]

It's like a really bad episode of Futurama...

[dramaturge]

Hahaha. LB, posting that in this thread made my Monday!