You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 04:55:00 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Rick Santorum...  (Read 2887 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Rick Santorum...
« on: January 10, 2012, 07:15:09 PM »
I'm not Ameircan, so I don't follow the election, but my Facebook is being assaulted with clips. Clips of a very, very stupid man. Not uncommon, but usually, the idiots parading around my Facebook page are linked because they're whapping each other with light tubes or riding shopping trolleys. It's not often I get to see such a tremendous moron running for FRICKEN president.

Rick Santorum: "I have gay friends"

Rick Santorum Says Barack Obama Should be Pro-Life Because He is Black

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ic5EAO8RqVE#!

Does this guy hear himself? :/ He sounds like that Troll that got famous for tricking all of Youtube into following his ingenious Christian act.


Offline Codswallop

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2012, 07:07:14 AM »
Google his last name, I promise it'll make you feel better.  ;D

Offline Vekseid

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2012, 02:56:46 PM »
DO NOT MAKE ANY REFERENCE ABOUT A DESIRE TO DO PHYSICAL HARM TO SOMEONE.

Seriously. I know Rick Santorum is one of the vilest members of the human species alive. But the last thing anyone here needs is me getting a visit from the Secret Service asking for your details so that you can get a visit yourself. These people do not have a sense of humor.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2012, 08:39:18 PM »
What if Romney wins a few more, keeps on top and secures the nomination - and they put Santorum as veep candidate to get the core conservatives and Biblical christians behind the ticket? A bit the same kind of game as with Palin in 2008, the presidential nominee a man who appears more middle-ground, and for VP candidate a younger, more impetuous, more steadily Christian conservative person. Santorum isn't gonna lose voters to Romney easily in the next few primaries, they seem to appeal to quite different voter constituencies, so he would be in a good position.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 08:51:23 PM by gaggedLouise »

Offline Codswallop

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2012, 08:49:41 PM »
This is only my opinion; I donít pretend to be a political scientist or activist.

Honestly, I wouldnít worry about this guy.  My belief is that the Republican party knows that their chances of winning this election arenít great.  This is a year for clearing out the lunatic candidates so they don't dirty up the next election.  I feel confident that Rick Santorum will vanish into obscurity within a couple of weeks.  I also expect the veep nominee will be someone who hasnít had a chance to piss off half the country, the only question will be if itís a Dick Cheney or a Sarah Palin type.

As a man who is wrong about many things, I could be wrong.

Offline AndyZ

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2012, 12:34:29 AM »
Believe me, intelligence is not by any means a factor in becoming President.  Here's a few examples just from our current President.  Since I realize you're not American, I'll explain the mistakes.

Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States

We only have 50 states.

Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago

Our constitution was written 2 centuries ago, not 20.

Obama Recalls the "bomb" that fell on Pearl Harbor

We dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Pearl Harbor is part of our own country.

I could drop them all for George W. Bush but I'd be shocked if you haven't seen more than enough by now to last you.

Basically, America is trapped in a two party system where people will vote for someone they despise just because, in their opinion, he's not as bad as the other guy.  Our first president vehemently warned against political parties because this would happen and nobody listened.  Check through the threads for the many, many people who despise Obama and yet will vote for him anyway just because they don't want a Republican.

This is becoming a rant, but I hope it provided at least a little bit of perspective on why both Democrats and Republicans are destroying the country, with more people falling into the cracks of the growing chasm each day.

Offline Serephino

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2012, 12:40:31 AM »
If he does end up as the VP candidate, then the Republicans clearly haven't learned their lesson.  Pailin killed it for McCain because she was way too out there.  She may have had a fan base among ultra conservatives, but moderates and liberals hated her.  Santorum isn't much different.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2012, 02:02:13 AM »
If he does end up as the VP candidate, then the Republicans clearly haven't learned their lesson.  Pailin killed it for McCain because she was way too out there.  She may have had a fan base among ultra conservatives, but moderates and liberals hated her.  Santorum isn't much different.


The reason for Palin's VP nomination was, as Nate Silver put it, because "A 10% chance of winning by 1% beats a 100% chance of losing by 2%".

Believe me, intelligence is not by any means a factor in becoming President.  Here's a few examples just from our current President.  Since I realize you're not American, I'll explain the mistakes.

*snip*

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

Intelligence isn't a matter of rote facts. I wonder how many people who forward this sort of dickery have written themselves a letter after they've been up for four days.

Regardless, equating slipups like the above or various random Bushisms to Santorum's outright hostility to a quarter of the membership of this site is a telling example of false equivalence. The former are amusing, but as long as it's realized, not harmful in any way, and can even help reinforce the idea that our leaders are human. The latter's statements reflect a desire to inflict harm on a portion of the population. You can in fact make an ethical distinction between the two, even if the former have done bad things themselves.


Offline AndyZ

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2012, 02:31:23 AM »
Intelligence isn't a matter of rote facts. I wonder how many people who forward this sort of dickery have written themselves a letter after they've been up for four days.

Funny that posting the name of a Republican being "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" is perfectly acceptable behavior, but posting gaffs of a Democrat in his own words is "dickery."

Regardless, equating slipups like the above or various random Bushisms to Santorum's outright hostility to a quarter of the membership of this site is a telling example of false equivalence. The former are amusing, but as long as it's realized, not harmful in any way, and can even help reinforce the idea that our leaders are human. The latter's statements reflect a desire to inflict harm on a portion of the population. You can in fact make an ethical distinction between the two, even if the former have done bad things themselves.

Disagreeing vehemently on an issue is "a desire to inflict harm" and "outright hostility?"  I've read what he's said about Libertarians, and can't say I agree with his perspective, but a debate with words isn't damaging.  (Then again, I don't even agree with everything Libertarians say, which is why I'm Independent.)  If he tried to pass something trying to make people hush up their sexual preferences, I'd be against that, but the only one who ever did so was a Democrat.

Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all.  Everyone harps on the separation of church and state (incorrectly, if you actually read the First Amendment) but nobody finds it shocking that marriage begins in a church and ends in a courtroom.

If there is some reason that we need to have things legally binding, let's make everyone get a form for a civil union, even heterosexuals.  That way, you can handle things just fine regardless of gender, number of participants or species.

(I'm not sure if that last part would work, but I'd love to see someone let me know.)

Offline Beguile's Mistress

  • Time flies like an arrow ~ Fruit flies like a banana ~ Elliquiy's Fair-E Godmother
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2009
  • Location: Faeleacanvald ~ The Steeler Nation ~ Home of Lord Stanley's Cup 2016 ~ She won't stay throwed! ~ 48\22-5\1\11-5\7
  • Gender: Female
  • Perpetual Notion Machine ~ 'What if...?'
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2012, 03:00:25 AM »
Funny that posting the name of a Republican being "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" is perfectly acceptable behavior, but posting gaffs of a Democrat in his own words is "dickery."

There's a big difference between accidentally misstating facts and condemning entire segments of our citizenry because you don't agree with them.  If a candidate can't accept all the constituents how can that candidate represent me?

Offline AndyZ

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2012, 03:45:26 AM »
There's a big difference between accidentally misstating facts and condemning entire segments of our citizenry because you don't agree with them.  If a candidate can't accept all the constituents how can that candidate represent me?

I'm not Republican, and I haven't spent much time looking into Santorum's views on sexuality, but according to the clip, he doesn't condemn them, just doesn't agree with expanding the definition of marriage beyond heterosexuality.  However, you can easily make that argument on any politician.  If Obama condemns Republicans and the rich, how can he represent them?  If someone doesn't like the Tea Party or the Occupy Wall Street people, can s/he represent those people?

The only answer I can figure is that the politician shouldn't do anything which would adversely affect that person.  By that idea, Santorum shouldn't pass a law to make homosexuality illegal (and I seriously doubt he would, if only because it'd be political suicide) and Obama shouldn't pass a law which goes after specific constituents either.  I'd love to see something like that, or at least understand how it would even be possible.

You may as well ask how Independents are represented for each state.  I think I heard somewhere that around 40% of the country is neither Democrat nor Republican, but there's only two congresspeople who aren't.  Facts may be wrong there, please correct if possible.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2012, 04:20:10 AM »
A politician only has one job.  And that's to get him/herself and her party elected.  That's it.  They will say anything, promise anything and do anything to make it happen.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2012, 05:08:47 AM »
Funny that posting the name of a Republican being "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" is perfectly acceptable behavior, but posting gaffs of a Democrat in his own words is "dickery."

Where did I say you couldn't post those? Unless it was one of the edited ones, it's not against any rule on the site.

Quote
Disagreeing vehemently on an issue is "a desire to inflict harm" and "outright hostility?"

Working against equal rights for a minority usually falls into that camp, as it does in this case.

Quote
Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in marriage at all.  Everyone harps on the separation of church and state (incorrectly, if you actually read the First Amendment) but nobody finds it shocking that marriage begins in a church and ends in a courtroom.

If there is some reason that we need to have things legally binding, let's make everyone get a form for a civil union, even heterosexuals.  That way, you can handle things just fine regardless of gender, number of participants or species.

(I'm not sure if that last part would work, but I'd love to see someone let me know.)

I don't believe government should be involved in recognizing the concept of marriage, either. Logistically, it primarily serves as a means to determine things like priority for inheritance, visitation rights, etc. and this may be valid, but it certainly doesn't need to be filed under the 'marriage' label.

That said, if the only way to provide those benefits is through marriage, it is not ethical to arbitrarily deny them to one segment of the population while granting them to another.

I'm not Republican, and I haven't spent much time looking into Santorum's views on sexuality, but according to the clip, he doesn't condemn them, just doesn't agree with expanding the definition of marriage beyond heterosexuality.  However, you can easily make that argument on any politician.  If Obama condemns Republicans and the rich, how can he represent them?  If someone doesn't like the Tea Party or the Occupy Wall Street people, can s/he represent those people?

Santorum has spewed a lot of vile shit. He does not believe in the right to privacy, either. Or contraception, or 'sexual liberty'... I can go on. The biggest complaint when the url I linked to first started getting spread wasn't that it was inappropriate, it was because Santorum already is rather close to Latin for 'asshole' (and that link also references is opposition to homosexuals having sex, in general).

There are a few things we generally consider as settled on this forum, if you want to start a debate on them, you can make a new thread, but for the purposes of this argument let us lay this out: Homosexuality is not a choice. It is something you are, or are not.

Being a member of a political party, or a movement, is a choice. You can address the facts proposed by Tea Partiers and OWS proponents individually, and work to correct them or ignore them. You can condemn a group for performing or supporting an action. I condemn Congressional Republicans for jeopardizing one of our most valuable assets as a nation (the National Debt). I condemn most of our political leadership for passing indefinite detention period, much less of American citizens. I condemn Obama for playing politics with economic recovery.

All of these things share a common backdrop: they're stuff people can apologize for, and either stop doing, or try to undo the damage caused.

You don't just 'stop' being homosexual. At 'best', you go through a horrific psychological ordeal of pretending you are something you are not.

Quote
You may as well ask how Independents are represented for each state.  I think I heard somewhere that around 40% of the country is neither Democrat nor Republican, but there's only two congresspeople who aren't.  Facts may be wrong there, please correct if possible.

Well, we'll see if 40% is a blip or not. Most of them vote for democrats or republicans, however. They'll either get more involved in primaries and disrupt a current party, or actually gather enough force to build a viable third party. My bet is on an eventual progressive-libertarian alliance, probably with a lot of held noses.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2012, 07:05:48 AM »
Speaking as one of the moderates who are ignored too often in elections. I myself want Rick Santorum nowhere on the ticket. In fact he might be a deal breaker for a lot of mdrates I know. They'd vote for Obama purely on that choice. 

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2012, 11:14:45 AM »
I'd put myself in that 40%.  I have not declared a political party (and therefore, most of the survey people seem to start calling my house come September).  I probably come off sounding like a Democrat, but that's mostly because the majority of the Republican candidates are banging the Tea Party gong - to the point that even avowed but moderate Republicans are going 'What the F?'

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #15 on: January 12, 2012, 12:17:21 PM »
I was alright with some of there stuff..then they do a 90 (or more turn) from what makes sense..

Like:

Tea Party: Education needs to be fixed.. No Child Left Behind is epic fail..
Me: Yeah.. right.. definitely what's wrong.
Tea Party: SO we take away teacher protections, union negotiation rights, elimintate the Department of Eductation....

Me: WTF?

Offline Dizzied

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #16 on: January 12, 2012, 12:27:29 PM »
Why, Iowa? Why Santorum of all candidates?!

Best headline of Iowa: Santorum surges, Iowan voters lap it up

Offline Craz

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #17 on: January 12, 2012, 12:38:09 PM »
Why, Iowa? Why Santorum of all candidates?!

Best headline of Iowa: Santorum surges, Iowan voters lap it up

Oh, God, I read that, spat coffee over my keyboard, and started laughing again.

As of right now, I'm an undecided voter, but well, if Santorum's on the ticket, nope.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2012, 12:42:26 PM »
That headline needs to be sent to George Takei.  Ohhh, myyyyy!

Offline consortium11

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2012, 03:19:48 PM »
What if Romney wins a few more, keeps on top and secures the nomination - and they put Santorum as veep candidate to get the core conservatives and Biblical christians behind the ticket? A bit the same kind of game as with Palin in 2008, the presidential nominee a man who appears more middle-ground, and for VP candidate a younger, more impetuous, more steadily Christian conservative person. Santorum isn't gonna lose voters to Romney easily in the next few primaries, they seem to appeal to quite different voter constituencies, so he would be in a good position.

I think Santorum has too much baggage to get a VP spot... it's not like the Republicans are particularly short on people with strong "family values"/evangelical track records. Palin was chosen by/thrust on McCain... not Huckabee who was the evangelical in the primaries.

Personally I wouldn't be surprised if Jindal isn't at least asked. Popular in his state, has pretty strong evangelical credentials and because he burst onto the national scene relatively early (and flamed out quickly) it means a lot of the skeletons in his closest have already been looked at (the supposed exorcism for one). That said he may be a bit ambitious to settle for VP... but with the likes of Rubio, Christie and Rand Paul almost certainly looking at running in 4/8 years time that will be a crowded field.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #20 on: January 12, 2012, 03:55:58 PM »
Marco Rubio is a lying SOB... sorry..he's pretty much sold all his capital out with me. So much for small business, innovation, personal freedoms and anything else that matters to the middle class or lower. He's working for special interests and doesn't even hide it.

Sigh.. sorry.. he's a very big disapointment to me.

Offline MasterMischief

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #21 on: January 12, 2012, 07:54:29 PM »
I think it has gotten too ugly for any of the Not-Romneys to get a VP spot.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #22 on: January 12, 2012, 08:08:36 PM »
Oh trust me.. there are a few of them that would take it if offered.. and NONE of them said 'never' like Sec. Clinton did.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #23 on: January 12, 2012, 08:32:05 PM »
I think the gist is that the race has gotten so ugly in the primaries that whoever finally gets the brass ring won't want to make that offer. 


Random thought - in the earliest elections, the Vice President was chosen as the person who got the second-most number of electoral votes.  This was because each member had been given two votes, one of which had to be given to someone outside their state.  In order to make sure that those 'second votes' were carefully considered, there was an actual 'benefit' to coming in second.  After the deadlock between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson, the Twelfth Amendment was put in to ensure that the two offices were elected on separate ballots.

Technically, I could go in and vote for a Democrat President, and a Republican Veep.  If it weren't for the Electoral College voting for them as a unit (which is not mandated anywhere in the 12th), it would be theoretically possible to have a bipartisan Executive Branch.  Wouldn't that be an interesting wrinkle to throw at a system currently split by party lines?

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: Rick Santorum...
« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2012, 08:39:44 PM »
Wow.. I could imagine some of the mixes.. Bush/Gore.. Kennedy/Nixon.. ick.