PDA

View Full Version : Jon Huntsman 2012



TheGrapher
01-06-2012, 01:01 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7CKBTTGBKo&context=C3f2eee2ADOEgsToPDskITrsFU3_cXuqvHJkdLX1Cc

pghin08
01-06-2012, 10:08 AM
The Boston Globe just announced that they're backing Huntsman as well. Huntsman had to be floored by that. The biggest paper in the state in which Romney was governor goes for the OTHER Mormon? It's a significant win for him, though I don't know exactly how much difference it will make.

mrveggieman
01-06-2012, 10:19 AM
I have never understood how a newspaper can endorse a particular canidate. Aren't they supposed to be reporting the news not making it?

MadMan1978
01-06-2012, 10:27 AM
The Boston Globe just announced that they're backing Huntsman as well. Huntsman had to be floored by that. The biggest paper in the state in which Romney was governor goes for the OTHER Mormon? It's a significant win for him, though I don't know exactly how much difference it will make.
Well since you do not live here...you cant see the mess here after he left the state...

pghin08
01-06-2012, 10:31 AM
Well since you do not live here...you cant see the mess here after he left the state...

Is it really that bad there?

MadMan1978
01-06-2012, 10:35 AM
Is it really that bad there?
Yeah it is ....
But the health care is great! if you can afford it....

TheGrapher
01-06-2012, 01:10 PM
I heard the Boston Globe endorsed Huntsman. I am excited. But yes papers should report the news and not make them.

Star_Cards
01-06-2012, 01:19 PM
I have never understood how a newspaper can endorse a particular canidate. Aren't they supposed to be reporting the news not making it?

I don't understand that either. I also never understood how large groups or organizations back a specific candidate. Sure something like a union may have a specific politician they typically support but to say that the people within the union 100% support that person is unrealistic.

TheGrapher
01-06-2012, 08:17 PM
Are unions people like corporations are?

MadMan1978
01-07-2012, 11:38 AM
Are unions people like corporations are?
I would like to think they are...as well as most newspapers are

TheGrapher
01-07-2012, 04:40 PM
I disagree with that. I think unions, corporations and newspapers are all public entities run by people but I wouldn't define them as people.

MadMan1978
01-07-2012, 05:23 PM
disagree all you wish but I am pretty sure thats the law ..

pspstatus
01-07-2012, 07:05 PM
disagree all you wish but I am pretty sure thats the law ..

It is the law, but I think that's just so these groups can manipulate the system. A corporation is not a person and should not be considered one.

TheGrapher
01-07-2012, 10:48 PM
Just because it is the law doesn't mean it should be, in my opinion.

AUTaxMan
01-07-2012, 11:01 PM
I disagree with that. I think unions, corporations and newspapers are all public entities run by people but I wouldn't define them as people.

Actually, they are all private entities, and they are people.

TheGrapher
01-07-2012, 11:38 PM
They are run by people. Computers are used by people. Are computers people? Clothes are worn by people? Are clothes people? Chairs are occupied by people? Are chairs people? How can you imply corporations are people just like you and me? They're not. They're entities.

AUTaxMan
01-08-2012, 10:26 AM
They are run by people. Computers are used by people. Are computers people? Clothes are worn by people? Are clothes people? Chairs are occupied by people? Are chairs people? How can you imply corporations are people just like you and me? They're not. They're entities.

Let's get to the bottom of what you understand "corporations are people" to mean, and why do you that that is wrong (and why it matters). Entities are legal "persons," meaning that they can own property, sue and be sued, pay taxes, etc. They have different cultures and personalities based on who owns them and who runs them.

TheGrapher
01-08-2012, 02:57 PM
Let's get to the bottom of what you understand "corporations are people" to mean, and why do you that that is wrong (and why it matters). Entities are legal "persons," meaning that they can own property, sue and be sued, pay taxes, etc. They have different cultures and personalities based on who owns them and who runs them.

That shouldn't qualify them as an actual person though. Walmart is a company. Not a person. The New York Times is a newspaper. Not a person.

"Well obviously they're not. People are individuals, they're not groups and they're not companies. Individuals have rights. They're not collective. You can't duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations and they shouldn't be a new creature, so to speak. Right and obligations should always be back to the individual."

-Ron Paul

MadMan1978
01-08-2012, 03:05 PM
Like a quote or comment from Ron Paul will change my mid...


whether you like it or not as a matter of Law they are to treated as a person
Walmart is not just a company they are a CORPORATION, New York Times is a CORPORATION...thus they have some of the same right as you and i do...

news papers endorsing candidates has been happening for what 200 year or maybe even more???


on a side note I did watch part of last night debate...he got slammed HARD! Not that I agree with how and what they slammed him for..

AUTaxMan
01-08-2012, 03:13 PM
That shouldn't qualify them as an actual person though. Walmart is a company. Not a person. The New York Times is a newspaper. Not a person.

"Well obviously they're not. People are individuals, they're not groups and they're not companies. Individuals have rights. They're not collective. You can't duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations and they shouldn't be a new creature, so to speak. Right and obligations should always be back to the individual."

-Ron Paul

Again, why does it matter if a corporation is considered a person? Why do you have a problem with it?

TheGrapher
01-08-2012, 08:23 PM
Newspapers SHOULDN'T endorse candidates though. I am a journalism student. It's the job of newspapers to REPORT the news, NOT make them!

Why do I have a problem with it? Because government of the people by the people for the people is an allusion that should be a reality. Want to know why it's not a reality? We have a roadblock that happens in Washington where the people's actual voice is overruled by the people we send to Capitol Hill being bought out by the corporations, pacs and lobbyists.

Hence, my endorsement for Huntsman, a man who refuses to pander and be bought out. Rick Perry wants to make it even tougher for the American people to have a voice in their government by eliminating the 17th amendment.

AUTaxMan
01-08-2012, 11:10 PM
Why do I have a problem with it? Because government of the people by the people for the people is an illusion that should be a reality. Want to know why it's not a reality? We have a roadblock that happens in Washington where the people's actual voice is overruled by the people we send to Capitol Hill being bought out by the corporations, pacs and lobbyists.

You are wrong. The midterm elections showed that the people still have a say in this country.

Also, what does any of that have to do with corporations being people? Romney said corporations are people because taxes raised on them will amount to nothing more than raising taxes on the people who either are employed by them or buy their products and services. Corporations being people has nothing to do with the crony capitalism of which you complain.

I agree that newspapers shouldn't endorse candidates.

TheGrapher
01-08-2012, 11:22 PM
You are wrong. The midterm elections showed that the people still have a say in this country.

Also, what does any of that have to do with corporations being people? Romney said corporations are people because taxes raised on them will amount to nothing more than raising taxes on the people who either are employed by them or buy their products and services. Corporations being people has nothing to do with the crony capitalism of which you complain.

I agree that newspapers shouldn't endorse candidates.

They may have a say in the country in terms of getting somebody elected; but then they quickly sell out and are bought by whomever.

freethrowtommy
01-08-2012, 11:25 PM
Watching that debate- watching Ron Paul get angry at Newt for finding ways to get our of serving his country in a scary manner- by actually going to war, that really resonated with me.
And then this audacity that Mitt stated that anyone who did anything positive under the Obama administration should be ignore or ridiculed pissed me off- much like Paul to Newt.
It's not country first for Mitt, Newt and others. It's a "Me first". How can I line my pockets better? What can I do to be guaranteed some chapters in History books for ever, to cement my legacy?
And for Mitt to dismiss the work Huntsman did in China- not so much for the Obama administration- but for the country really irked me. By no means do I believe for a moment Huntsman had it rough in China, but it's a big deal to be overseas, away from home. Away from the perks of America. The stress and adjustments his family had to made, etc...
I think Hunstman is right. He was serving his country, when Romney was trying to line his pockets. And it's crap Romney or anyone else looks down on that service.

AUTaxMan
01-08-2012, 11:59 PM
Watching that debate- watching Ron Paul get angry at Newt for finding ways to get our of serving his country in a scary manner- by actually going to war, that really resonated with me.
And then this audacity that Mitt stated that anyone who did anything positive under the Obama administration should be ignore or ridiculed pissed me off- much like Paul to Newt.
It's not country first for Mitt, Newt and others. It's a "Me first". How can I line my pockets better? What can I do to be guaranteed some chapters in History books for ever, to cement my legacy?
And for Mitt to dismiss the work Huntsman did in China- not so much for the Obama administration- but for the country really irked me. By no means do I believe for a moment Huntsman had it rough in China, but it's a big deal to be overseas, away from home. Away from the perks of America. The stress and adjustments his family had to made, etc...
I think Hunstman is right. He was serving his country, when Romney was trying to line his pockets. And it's crap Romney or anyone else looks down on that service.

I didn't watch the debate, but I'm pretty sure Huntsman wasn't roughing it over there, considering the fact that his father is one of the wealthiest men in the world.

I don't understand your comments about Romney wanting to line his pockets and cement his legacy.

MadMan1978
01-09-2012, 12:05 AM
A good Question was asked to Mitt....If he was so successful as Governor in Mass why didnt he run for a second term?

MadMan1978
01-09-2012, 12:06 AM
I ask why Roomey doesn't live in Mass?