You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 08, 2016, 08:16:44 PM

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: Santorum  (Read 11964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vtboy

Re: Santorum
« Reply #50 on: February 25, 2012, 10:45:46 AM »
Saint Santorum has testified:

“In the Netherlands, people wear different bracelets if they are elderly. And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized — ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands — half of those people are enthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, they will not come out of that hospital if they go in there with sickness.”

— Former senator Rick Santorum, at the American Heartland Forum in Columbia, Missouri, Feb. 3, 2012


Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Santorum
« Reply #51 on: February 25, 2012, 10:50:43 AM »
And he's commenting on Norwegian health care because... he needs an extremely bad example to put next to American hospitals?

Offline vtboy


Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Santorum
« Reply #53 on: February 25, 2012, 11:04:02 AM »
So... Abortion used to be not tolerated, and now it is, and since it wasn't before it's still bad? I love how simplistic his chain of logic tends to be.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Santorum
« Reply #54 on: February 25, 2012, 11:25:16 AM »
Not abortion. Euthanasia is what he's talking about - assisted suicide.

Offline SabbyTopic starter

Re: Santorum
« Reply #55 on: February 25, 2012, 11:28:01 AM »
No, the video in the link he goes off into an Abortion tangent for a while. Not sure why... I guess to remind us he's representing the crazies. Anal sex and unwanted pregnancy seem to be the biggest issues in these turbulent times.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Santorum
« Reply #56 on: February 25, 2012, 11:44:32 AM »
Facebook is once more oddly relevant:



(I say 'oddly' because it's usually pretty irrelevant.)

Offline Serephino

Re: Santorum
« Reply #57 on: February 25, 2012, 03:37:23 PM »
Ah, yes, we must not let ourselves become like Socialist Europe because they abort babies and kill the elderly...  We Americans can't have that!

There goes the fear mongering again.  Personally, I would like to hear a response to this from a Dutch person, because I'm just betting the asshole is full of it.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Santorum
« Reply #58 on: February 28, 2012, 10:53:39 AM »
I will just point out Republicans will vote for whoever is the final nominee and it could be Santorum, so he could easily be the next president. Crazy sounding or not he has ample support once nominated built in that is all Republicans, southern independents and many who are fed up with no clear improvements in the economy affecting them. Add to that that subtle racism and Obama is not in a good position to gain office again.

So poke fun but his views are not hurting him much and in fact may be helping him.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #59 on: February 28, 2012, 12:10:43 PM »
I will just point out Republicans will vote for whoever is the final nominee and it could be Santorum, so he could easily be the next president. Crazy sounding or not he has ample support once nominated built in that is all Republicans, southern independents and many who are fed up with no clear improvements in the economy affecting them. Add to that that subtle racism and Obama is not in a good position to gain office again.

So poke fun but his views are not hurting him much and in fact may be helping him.

I know at least .. (counts family members) Seven republicans who won't vote for him. Does a quick count of friends that called the incumbent the 'lesser evil'. That's another.. dozen or so.

Don't think that he'd get elected and I'm sure the men running the party know that.

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: Santorum
« Reply #60 on: February 28, 2012, 12:14:47 PM »
I've heard numbers as high as 20% of Republicans are more likely to vote incumbent - throw in sampling error and spin-factor, and I'd be likely to believe 10% - it's still a hefty chunk of change.  If he keeps pissing off women, that number could go higher.  (I wonder if he remembers that we still have that pesky right to vote?)

Offline Avis habilis

Re: Santorum
« Reply #61 on: February 28, 2012, 12:18:41 PM »
Thirty million fundamentalists sat on their hands last time because McCain wasn't homophobic & anti-choice enough. That includes a certain number of the Concerned Women for America (or as Fred Clark refers to them, "Ladies Against Women") set. I very much fear that Santorum, who they think is aces, could stroll to victory.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Santorum
« Reply #62 on: February 28, 2012, 12:38:38 PM »
I've heard numbers as high as 20% of Republicans are more likely to vote incumbent - throw in sampling error and spin-factor, and I'd be likely to believe 10% - it's still a hefty chunk of change.  If he keeps pissing off women, that number could go higher.  (I wonder if he remembers that we still have that pesky right to vote?)

I know but they might say that but when the vote is cast will they. But Republicans usually vote with the party when Democrats will not and Independents will vote the way the wind is blowing later in the election night. So who knows but he could get in if Obama gets enough backlash voting which is an issue.

Santorums running mate will be key if he is smart he will ask Jodi Rell of Connecticate to run she is smart, moderate and works with both parties and a woman and respects the seperation of powers, In short she could temper the ticket and is a serious choice. Olene S. Walker would also be the other good choice she is sensible, doesn't make waves and would bring in Utah as a state plus is well regarded even by Democrats in her state and be less controversial for him as a choice and would be safe.


Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #63 on: February 28, 2012, 01:08:41 PM »
I know but they might say that but when the vote is cast will they. But Republicans usually vote with the party when Democrats will not and Independents will vote the way the wind is blowing later in the election night. So who knows but he could get in if Obama gets enough backlash voting which is an issue.

Santorums running mate will be key if he is smart he will ask Jodi Rell of Connecticate to run she is smart, moderate and works with both parties and a woman and respects the seperation of powers, In short she could temper the ticket and is a serious choice. Olene S. Walker would also be the other good choice she is sensible, doesn't make waves and would bring in Utah as a state plus is well regarded even by Democrats in her state and be less controversial for him as a choice and would be safe.

Thing is.. I doubt that that Santorum (and his bible thumpers) want to 'dilute' their message with a moderate. After all, both the options you listed have mouths and opinions. The vibe I get is he'd definitely catch hell for picking 'his mom' as a running mate (sorry).

Offline SilentScreams

Re: Santorum
« Reply #64 on: February 28, 2012, 01:19:16 PM »
Conservatism!
Getting the big mean repressive government out of our lives.*

* unless it involves subsidizing corporations, war, or stopping buttsechs.  Then more government is good.    C:)

Really, now, is that constructive? Or does it just help, like this thread and the opinion piece that spawned it, ensure that this manufactured animosity continues?

Now, looking at the "unless" factors for a moment; corporate subsidies? Yes, it's clear that there have been absolutely none, nope, not all all, zilch, nada, zero of those during the past three years. General Motors has always been Government Motors, right? To the second contention; wars. I don't know how you define war but it seems that since the State Dept. began a systematized destabilization of our allies war has actually increased in the past three years. And do you not see the slow, steady march to war that is being drummed into us by government and the media (both right and left)? Or do you really think that Syria is for humanitarian purposes because Assad used chem weapons on his people. Oh wait, imagine that- so did Saddam. Iran? Ever see it in the news? Clearly, its the republicans.

The media is manupliating the public to keep them riled up and screaming about nothing while the government continues to tighten the screws on each and every one of us. Except we don't notice, do we? No, today they tighten the screws on the right and the left cheers, tomorrow vice versa and at the end of the week there are no more screws left to be tightened. We are being split apart on purpose by stories, and the furor they create, on purpose.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #65 on: February 28, 2012, 01:40:18 PM »
Really, now, is that constructive? Or does it just help, like this thread and the opinion piece that spawned it, ensure that this manufactured animosity continues?

Now, looking at the "unless" factors for a moment; corporate subsidies? Yes, it's clear that there have been absolutely none, nope, not all all, zilch, nada, zero of those during the past three years. General Motors has always been Government Motors, right? To the second contention; wars. I don't know how you define war but it seems that since the State Dept. began a systematized destabilization of our allies war has actually increased in the past three years. And do you not see the slow, steady march to war that is being drummed into us by government and the media (both right and left)? Or do you really think that Syria is for humanitarian purposes because Assad used chem weapons on his people. Oh wait, imagine that- so did Saddam. Iran? Ever see it in the news? Clearly, its the republicans.

The media is manupliating the public to keep them riled up and screaming about nothing while the government continues to tighten the screws on each and every one of us. Except we don't notice, do we? No, today they tighten the screws on the right and the left cheers, tomorrow vice versa and at the end of the week there are no more screws left to be tightened. We are being split apart on purpose by stories, and the furor they create, on purpose.

Let's see.. the automotive industry bailouts are always smaller, and I hate to point it out they have a MUCH better history of repaying the loans they get. Whereas the BANKS have taken the money and ran. They have bought their way out of criminal offenses and NO ONE (Democrat/GOP) have pushed really hard to get people prosecuted for the obvious fraud that led up to the housing crisis.

'Deregulation' has been the byword of conservatives forever. I've always been more of a fan of Ronald Reagan's 'right sized' government over 'smaller'. It was a bipartisan congress and a democratic president that repealed Glass-Steagell and left us vulnerable to the mayhem of the last decade in the banking industry.

Now with the 'Citizen United' decision freeing corporate purse strings you'll see smear adds from 'non-profits' fronting for big industry. The big money companies, and folks like those lovely scamps the Koch Brothers, will be able to buy ad time with zero accountability or disclosure.

Conservatives use folks like Santorum to get the fringe element, who otherwise wouldn't vote, to back their candidates. Barring a really really NASTY secret in his closet, I see Santorum being a BP.

As for the inference that we destabilized Syria and Iraq.. yeah.. I guess we did. You see back in the cold war... when the US fought the USSR through proxies, we backed them. Along with a lot of other 'aggressor' states. But when we started 'downsizing' government that meant the payola stopped. Without that cash, and the leverage it brought, it was hard to control folks like Saddam (which is why he invaded Kuwait..for real estate and cash)

And fyi.. Subsidies you don't pay back.. Detroit paid off their loans before..and will do it again. I doubt the superbanks will do anything of the sort. And if they could get away with the same 'pass the bill' poison bonds issue they did for YEARS that created the mortgage crisis, they'll do it again.

Santorum is a faceman for the patsies they know will vote for a 'righteous man', one that the monied interests will own.

Of course I see Romney getting the nod instead. He's, by the way, one of 'the money men' himself. His networth, depending on the source, is somewhere upwards of 200+ million.

Offline SilentScreams

Re: Santorum
« Reply #66 on: February 28, 2012, 01:52:26 PM »
The money that we pay in taxes has been flowing out from the government to everyone with a hand out for the past three years. The It's not a right/left thing it's a Washington thing. Regardless of party, as long as they feel that they are our masters the pain will continue. We won't get free of it until we realize how we are being manipulated through the media. That was really the point of my previous post.

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #67 on: February 28, 2012, 02:33:30 PM »
The money that we pay in taxes has been flowing out from the government to everyone with a hand out for the past three years. The It's not a right/left thing it's a Washington thing. Regardless of party, as long as they feel that they are our masters the pain will continue. We won't get free of it until we realize how we are being manipulated through the media. That was really the point of my previous post.

True.. but unlike the Banks (who got much bigger checks) the GM folks have been bailed out before..and paid back their loans in full, and ahead of time. Whereas the banks on wall street simply took the checks, and moved on. Business as usual. No changes. The automotive companies had in the past had reconfigured their market model and done a lot to fix things. They agreed to revamp their systems again.

Yet, the media and parties treated them like shit, while getting the banks blank checks.

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: Santorum
« Reply #68 on: February 28, 2012, 02:38:32 PM »
The money that we pay in taxes has been flowing out from the government to everyone with a hand out for the past three years.

Except for those people (not corporations) who really need it.  Just ask anyone trying to fight for SSDI. 

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #69 on: February 28, 2012, 02:46:54 PM »
Except for those people (not corporations) who really need it.  Just ask anyone trying to fight for SSDI.

Don't forget the bank settlements for housing relief that at least 3 states are not using the funds to help home owners..

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Santorum
« Reply #70 on: February 28, 2012, 02:49:12 PM »
I think I take offense at the term "hand outs" when applied to people getting money from the government. It's our damn money going into Social Security, not the governments. Of course, try to tell them that when you need it, as Oniya brought up.

Offline Will

Re: Santorum
« Reply #71 on: February 28, 2012, 02:51:12 PM »
Really, now, is that constructive? Or does it just help, like this thread and the opinion piece that spawned it, ensure that this manufactured animosity continues?

Now, looking at the "unless" factors for a moment; corporate subsidies? Yes, it's clear that there have been absolutely none, nope, not all all, zilch, nada, zero of those during the past three years. General Motors has always been Government Motors, right? To the second contention; wars. I don't know how you define war but it seems that since the State Dept. began a systematized destabilization of our allies war has actually increased in the past three years. And do you not see the slow, steady march to war that is being drummed into us by government and the media (both right and left)? Or do you really think that Syria is for humanitarian purposes because Assad used chem weapons on his people. Oh wait, imagine that- so did Saddam. Iran? Ever see it in the news? Clearly, its the republicans.

The media is manupliating the public to keep them riled up and screaming about nothing while the government continues to tighten the screws on each and every one of us. Except we don't notice, do we? No, today they tighten the screws on the right and the left cheers, tomorrow vice versa and at the end of the week there are no more screws left to be tightened. We are being split apart on purpose by stories, and the furor they create, on purpose.

It wasn't a comparison between parties.  He didn't say what liberals have or haven't done.  It was a demonstration of hypocrisy on the part of "conservatives."  Pointing out that these things were also done while a Democrat was in the White House doesn't change that in the slightest.

Also, apparently reading JFK's speech on freedom of religion makes Santorum want to throw up.  How eloquent.  And ironic, given my usual reaction to reading anything Santorum ever says.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 02:53:12 PM by Will »

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Santorum
« Reply #72 on: February 28, 2012, 03:05:29 PM »
It wasn't a comparison between parties.  He didn't say what liberals have or haven't done.  It was a demonstration of hypocrisy on the part of "conservatives."  Pointing out that these things were also done while a Democrat was in the White House doesn't change that in the slightest.

Also, apparently reading JFK's speech on freedom of religion makes Santorum want to throw up.  How eloquent.  And ironic, given my usual reaction to reading anything Santorum ever says.

I can't put my finger on any ONE thing that he's said or done.. I just get the slimy weasel vibe when he talks. When he lies or misrepresents things it's not much worse than any other politician stumping for office.. but I get the vibe that he'd be a BAD choice in the White House (as President or Vice President).

Offline Iniquitous

Re: Santorum
« Reply #73 on: February 28, 2012, 03:47:19 PM »
In all honesty, Santorum scares me. Flat out scares me. I really, really want to believe that he was put out there as a distraction or an insurance policy that Obama gets reelected because the alternative thought - that he would be a good president - is just too horrifying.

Offline Avis habilis

Re: Santorum
« Reply #74 on: February 28, 2012, 03:57:18 PM »
Oh, he would be a despicable president. The question is, how many people like his brand of despicable?

Despicability? You know what I mean.