Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

leftysergeant said:
Whatever. He would reshape this country more to the liking of the KKKrap than would Obama or Hunstman. They reason in the same way, and have as tenuous a grip on reality.
Click to expand...

Look at the Stormfront posts; the KKK is backing Ron Paul not Santorum.
 
RandFan said:
It would be wrong to judge Muslims for the evil of Ahmadinejad. It's easy to judge Ahmadinejad for the evil of Ahmadinejad. You are confusing things. I don't judge Santorum for being an evangelical Christian. Nor do I judge evangelicals for the the hurtful and harmful things Santorum has said. I judge Santorum for his hurtful and harmful rhetoric. That's easy to stand behind.
Click to expand...

How is Ahmadinejad evil? For an Iranian politician he’s a moderate.
 
RandFan said:
Ignorance only goes so far. Santorum is running for president. To accept that he is so ignorant that he does not understand the depth of harm his words convey would render him an idiot. Okay. I'm happy to go with that.
Click to expand...

Being an idiot got Bush II elected, so why not Santorum?
 
RandFan said:
I don't find him moral. Morality is about how we treat other people to maximize well being and minimize harm. This religious BS view of morality was, in part, the basis for the Inquisitions, Crusades, witch burnings, misogyny, slavery and hundreds of years of wars. I find Santorum fundamentally immoral. I think his opinions not worthy of an individual running for high office. If someone like him were vocally advocating the views of the KKK I would find that person no more immoral.
Click to expand...

I put moral in quotes because I feel like Santorum is likely living up to his own morals, even if I find some of them repugnant (or just boring)
 
Brainster said:
What would you suggest the GOP do? Ban hateful rhetoric? If your point is that little Ricky shouldn't be up on the stage of the debates I'd agree (based on his polling, which is pathetic). But when you say we should not allow hateful rhetoric to be advanced, I do not.
Click to expand...

The GOP is not the government. A private organization has every right to be choosy about who speaks for them and what they say.

I think they absolutely should not allow hateful rhetoric to be advanced in their name. Can they force him not to make public statements? Absolutely not. But they can completely disassociate themselves from his rhetoric and his campaign, and state that he does not speak for the party. That would be a sufficient job of "not allowing hateful rhetoric".

I notice this has not been done.
 
MaGZ said:
Look at the Stormfront posts; the KKK is backing Ron Paul not Santorum.
Click to expand...
Either of them would be more useful to the white nationalists than is Obama.

Hard to get up an enraged mob of peasants when things are working right.
 
Wow. I guess you know campaign season is in full gear when people are even defending Santorum. :boggled:
 
Pardalis said:
Then you got your work cut out for you, because 98% of the world is religious.
Click to expand...
Being religious does not equal being a bigot. One doesn't even need to be religious to be a bigot. Though I bet a venn diagram would show a lot of overlap between those that are homophobic bigots and people that are religious. I just thought I would clarify that since you keep bringing this up.

Daredelvs
 
Brainster said:
What would you suggest the GOP do? Ban hateful rhetoric? If your point is that little Ricky shouldn't be up on the stage of the debates I'd agree (based on his polling, which is pathetic). But when you say we should not allow hateful rhetoric to be advanced, I do not.
Click to expand...

Publicly disagreeing with it would be a start.
 
Brainster said:
What would you suggest the GOP do?
Click to expand...
You are so not getting this. I think the people, citizens and leaders should be so outraged by such nonsense that they would denounce people like Santorum. Santorum should get the same response as David Duke or a pedophile.

Ban hateful rhetoric?
Click to expand...
No. I don't know how I can make it any more clear. Look, if a member of NAMBLA or the KKK wanted to run for president I would defend their rights to freedom of expression. I would hope the GOP would not be stupid enough to back them.
 
MaGZ said:
How is Ahmadinejad evil?
Click to expand...
He does not stand up to atrocity. Iran hangs homosexuals and he does nothing to stop it. On the contrary, he denies that Iran has homosexuals. IMO, that's evil.
 
elbe said:
I put moral in quotes because I feel like Santorum is likely living up to his own morals, even if I find some of them repugnant (or just boring)
Click to expand...
Thanks, I have no problem with that view. I find him immoral. But that's fine. The problem primarily lies in his inconsistency.
 
RandFan said:
You are so not getting this. I think the people, citizens and leaders should be so outraged by such nonsense that they would denounce people like Santorum. Santorum should get the same response as David Duke or a pedophile.

No. I don't know how I can make it any more clear. Look, if a member of NAMBLA or the KKK wanted to run for president I would defend their rights to freedom of expression. I would hope the GOP would not be stupid enough to back them.
Click to expand...

Who's backing him? His polling numbers are within the error margin of zero.
 
Brainster said:
Who's backing him? His polling numbers are within the error margin of zero.
Click to expand...
He is on the dais and Gary Johnson isn't. The GOP includes Santorum in their polls to determine whether or not to include him. They don't do the same for Johnson.
 
Brainster said:
Who's backing him? His polling numbers are within the error margin of zero.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't appear that his abhorrent statements on homosexuals are the reason he has such little support. The issue isn't that he's seen as a strong contender for the GOP nomination, but that he was seen as a contender at all even without a real chance. He's not getting backing, but not for the reason that one would hope disqualifies him from support. This is similar to Cain. Was it his unworkable tax plan or complete inability to understand diplomacy and international affairs that disqualified him? No, it was sexual stuff.

Before you say that Santorum never had any chance, he is still included on polls. That means he was important enough to be included in the first place. I do agree that harping on Santorum too much or holding him as exemplifying Republicans in general is uncalled for, but attacking his harmful and bigoted ideas is and will always be fair game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom