Santorum Pledges to End Internet Porn

[nathanm]

Seems that nobody want's to take their touted fundamental principles to their logical conclusion.

Unbreakable principles taken to their end almost invariably result in illogical conclusions. Liberal ideals taken to their illogical conclusion end up with government taking all income. Conservative ideals taken to their illogical conclusion ends up in anarchy. Both are equally useless at the extremes.

[erfalf]

Yet it seems both political parties end up at the same place. How's that for choice?

[we vs us]

Yet it seems both political parties end up at the same place. How's that for choice?

The interesting part of that statement is that actually only one party is playing ball from the fringe.  The other is kinda flopping around in the middle and poaching all the stuff the other party formerly believed in.   

[we vs us]

My other question is:  if Obama is so bad, what is the compelling case for either Romney or Santorum on the economic front?  From Romney I only hear Obama = badbadbadbadevilbad, and from Santorum all I hear is = moralitymoralitymoralitymorality.  The President is putting up solid policy . . . and whether or not you agree with the mechanisms behind that policy, at least he's trying to rationally address the problems in front of him.  I have yet to hear from either GOP contenders what they'd do if handing the Presidency.  Aside from repeal Obamacare, that is.  I'd heard that Romney had a 67-point something-or-other floating around out there, a prescription for fixing what ails us, but I haven't heard about since it got shouted down by the Tea Partiers in the earliest part of the primaries.  Anything else I should know about what Romney would do fix our continuing mess?  Beside repeal Obamacare, that is. 

[Townsend]

Beside repeal Obamacare, that is. 

Apparently that's all it would take.

We'd all be rolling in dough.

[erfalf]

The interesting part of that statement is that actually only one party is playing ball from the fringe.  The other is kinda flopping around in the middle and poaching all the stuff the other party formerly believed in.  

Uh, I would bet that no matter who you asked, they would say that the above statement represented the party that they opposed.  

[Hoss]

Uh, I would bet that no matter who you asked, they would say that the above statement represented the party that they opposed.  

Except that anyone knows which party the Evangelicals support, and thus morality.

Not to say that Democrats don't support morals.  They just don't make it a stump speech.

[custosnox]

Except that anyone knows which party the Evangelicals support, and thus morality.

Not to say that Democrats don't support morals.  They just don't make it a stump speech.

That is assuming that just because a persons religious views don't agree with something another's deems as moral, doesn't make it immoral.

[Red Arrow]

and whether or not you agree with the mechanisms behind that policy, at least he's trying to rationally address the problems in front of him. 

I can try to sing but I'm sure if you heard me (try to sing) you would ask what I did with the money my mother gave me for singing lessons.

[Red Arrow]

Except that anyone knows which party the Evangelicals support, and thus morality.
Not to say that Democrats don't support morals.  They just don't make it a stump speech.

Define morals.

(Note that I don't generally agree with the Evangelicals.  They stole my Republican party right out from under me.)

[Red Arrow]

The interesting part of that statement is that actually only one party is playing ball from the fringe.  The other is kinda flopping around in the middle and poaching all the stuff the other party formerly believed in.   

Let me guess which one you think it is.

[Red Arrow]

 For instance, I like urban living and think more of us should live that way.  I can get there through a liberal method of say fighting for more transit funding and zoning for urban development, or through the completely opposite super conservative tack, saying no more government funding of transit of any kind including roads and highways and let people build what they want where they want, leaving roads and development up to the free market.

So you support getting rid of the road tax on gasoline? We all know that it doesn't completely pay for our roads but it helps.  Public transit hasn't paid for itself directly for a long time.  Way back when "transit" paid for road maintenance and franchise fees to cities, it did pay for itself but then it unfortunately lead to the transit holocaust.   Fringe benefits make public transit worthwhile to subsidize.

The latter way ends up creating more "urbanity" because its up to the developers, neighborhoods, etc. to pay for, maintain, etc. the roads they are on,,, you will end up with denser development and then transit will be far more workable and used, and pedestrians will be more paid attention to than the auto, etc.

Maybe.  People have been wanting to get out of the "city" for a long time.  Wanting to return to urban life on a mass scale is relatively recent.  I believe it is due to many of the subsidies to encourage dense living.  I'm sure we will have to disagree on that.  

The problem is that conservatives tout less government spending and intervention.... but only when its not related to something they want like roads and highways.  But when a liberal wants funding for transit/rail the conservatives holler that its not the place of the government to spend money on that.  Conservatives say that the government shouldnt tell people what to do or what to do with their property, BUT, when a liberal wants to get rid of minimium parking requirements, allow for mixed use developments, and so on... conservatives have a fit.  And on and on we can go.

I kind of have to agree except where is the general tax dedicated (supposedly) for public transit?  I know some cities have voted for a tax specifically to support transit but so far it has not been the trend.  The trend is to request Federal support.  Why should Tulsans want to pay for transit in NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA, Portland, Seattle, Philadelphia, Newark, Washington DC, St. Louis...... and why should they want to pay for transit in Tulsa?  At some level you have to ask why locals won't pay for their own transit.

[nathanm]

Why should Tulsans want to pay for transit in NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA, Portland, Seattle, Philadelphia, Newark, Washington DC, St. Louis...... and why should they want to pay for transit in Tulsa?

Because their transit helps us all. It reduces their energy use, which reduces upward pressure on energy prices. It improves their economy, which means there's more money to spread around for everyone. And it definitely improves my experience (and saves me money!) when I visit a city with a decent transit system. Oh, and it reduces the federal dollars we have to spend on expanding their roads even more, which is obviously more expensive in major cities where land prices are higher and there are more structures in the way.

Ideally, regional transit could be paid for by the regions themselves and the federal government would only have to step in for intercity transit (like high speed rail). Unfortunately, we're not at a point where that can happen. As you pointed out, we subsidize roads to a great degree already, so if we want the benefits of transit, we have to either stop subsidizing roads or increase transit subsidies to compete.

[Red Arrow]

Because their transit helps us all. It reduces their energy use, which reduces upward pressure on energy prices. It improves their economy, which means there's more money to spread around for everyone. And it definitely improves my experience (and saves me money!) when I visit a city with a decent transit system. Oh, and it reduces the federal dollars we have to spend on expanding their roads even more, which is obviously more expensive in major cities where land prices are higher and there are more structures in the way.

I believe the concept presented (by Artist) was to end subsidies to roads as well as transit (although he didn't say he agreed with it). 

Ideally, regional transit could be paid for by the regions themselves and the federal government would only have to step in for intercity transit (like high speed rail). Unfortunately, we're not at a point where that can happen. As you pointed out, we subsidize roads to a great degree already, so if we want the benefits of transit, we have to either stop subsidizing roads or increase transit subsidies to compete.

Ideally, all transportation should pay for itself but we both know that isn't going to happen.  I don't believe we should stop subsidizing roads but increasing transit subsidies (to some extent) is acceptable to me.

[TheMindWillNotLetGo]

Aside from child porn, obviously.

I think I am going to have to kindly disagree.  :coffee: