• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Santorum; I need more cash to fight the spread of Santorum.

JudeBrando said:
And Savage is shameless filth.
Click to expand...

No. Santorum is the evil, despicable man. Upon his death I will dance for joy and make sure his children get a video of me doing it. That will be done so they can learn what a horrible man their father was and that the Earth is a better place now that he isn't polluting it with his presence.




Don't be surprised to reap venom when you sow bigotry and intolerance.
 
Dag nab it. Here I go off the rails in the emotion of a moment and no one even yells at me about it.

What the hell?
 
Travis said:
Dag nab it. Here I go off the rails in the emotion of a moment and no one even yells at me about it.

What the hell?
Click to expand...

OK Travis, there is a limit and you sir have reached it and shall be yelled at!
No-one, I mean NO-ONE under the age of about elevnty eight or so can say DAG NAB IT without sounding like their parents abandoned them in front of a TV that only played Snuffy Smith, Yosemite Sam and Foghorn Leghorn reruns.

AM I, I SAY, AM I MAKIN' MYSELF CLEAR HERE SON?

Please dont allow it to continue.
You may return to the frothing already in progress.
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
Personally I'm more concerned with the character of the elected representatives of this country, when Savage is elected to a position of power I'll start worrying about his character more. The simple fact that the man stated only persecution of homosexual acts through sodomy laws is preventing the collapse of the modern nuclear family makes him considerably more vile and loathsome than anything Savage has said about him thus far. And I quote



Aside from implying the utterly discredited notion that liberals are bastions for moral relativism (which assumes the only alternative to divine command morality is moral relativism), he flatly stated he does not believe individuals in the US have a right to privacy. Furthermore, he clearly believes that what goes on inside the bedroom is absolutely the business of the government. Why are welfare programs examples the slide into a socialist nanny-state but support for laws and sting operations designed to enforce the morality dictated by the invisible sky magician are not examples of the US slide into a totalitarian theocracy? If acceptance of homosexuality is destroying America why is enforcing sodomy laws not a step towards building an empty throne for Christ on Capital Hill?



Lefty may be over the top and in many cases out of line but nothing I've seen him say on these forums in any way shape or form is worse than what Santorum has said in the past. Let's take Hurricane Katrina, for instance, where he blamed people for not getting out on time and suggested they be fined or otherwise penalized legally for it. Then he backpeddled and blamed the National Weather Service for not issuing warnings while having previously sponsored legislation that would've made such warning illegal so that private-sector weather services wouldn't have to compete with the NWS.
Click to expand...

Number Six said:
I have to say that from what I know of this matter so far I'm going to have to go with Santorum as being the least bad of the two. I agree with whoever said that Santorum could work this to his advantage. Savage behavior has given Santorum the moral high ground IMO, which on this matter is pretty hard to do.

It would have been mitigated somewhat if Savage had used ricksantorum instead of santorum. Now not only is Rick Santorum's family slurred but anyone anywhere with the name Santorum is too.
Click to expand...

Did you read the link in the above quote.

Santorum is bat-**** crazy and unaware of human history.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —
Click to expand...
 
I need to apologize to the forum. I had no idea that posting the definition of Santorum would be so absolutely revolting to you all. I think I have learned my lesson, especially after my appeal was denied, and I was suspended for five days.

Now I wonder if I should start that thread about getting a "Lewinsky"?
 
TheNooch said:
I need to apologize to the forum. I had no idea that posting the definition of Santorum would be so absolutely revolting to you all. I think I have learned my lesson, especially after my appeal was denied, and I was suspended for five days.

Now I wonder if I should start that thread about getting a "Lewinsky"?
Click to expand...

Did you somehow post this while suspended?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom