• 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.

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

Anyway, I think Santorum will not be a serious contender for long. I think he was just the latest not-Romney flavor of the month whose peak happened to coincide with the Iowa caucus. (Seriously, that 1/4 of the ~100K Iowa GOP caucus goers voted for him doesn't mean all that much. It's far more significant for effectively eliminating Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich, but we all knew that was just a matter of time.)

ETA: Santorum's still in the cellar (where he and his ideas belong) in national polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Anyway, I think Santorum will not be a serious contender for long. I think he was just the latest not-Romney flavor of the month whose peak happened to coincide with the Iowa caucus. (Seriously, that 1/4 of the ~100K Iowa GOP caucus goers voted for him doesn't mean all that much. It's far more significant for effectively eliminating Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich, but we all knew that was just a matter of time.)

ETA: Santorum's still in the cellar (where he and his ideas belong) in national polls: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Though I do believe it is possible he could win. I simply cannot abide such willful ignorance and bigotry. And this BS about keeping women barefoot and pregnant is so 1950s.
 
MaGZ said:
The SS guards at liberated concentration camps were immediately executed.
Click to expand...

Are you equating being homosexual with being an SS guard (whose crimes, among others, were the mistreatment and killing of homosexuals)?

At any rate, you're only offering a two-wrongs-make-a-right argument.

Many of the war criminals involved with Nazi concentration camps were not summarily executed, but were arrested and tried for their crimes. IMO, anyone who surrendered should have been treated that way. I like to think here in the 21st Century, our moral models shouldn't be wrong actions of the last century.
 
RandFan said:
I agree with you. Though I do believe it is possible he could win. I simply cannot abide such willful ignorance and bigotry. And this BS about keeping women barefoot and pregnant is so 1950s.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many fiscal conservatives would be willing to support his tax proposal that includes tripling what a parent can deduct for dependent children.
 
Ok...before things get out of hand; enough with the bickering. Please keep your posts on topic, address the argument and stay civil/polite - this means you bikerdruid and Pardalis.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
He got into it today with some students for about an hour and a half.

"How about the idea that all men are created [with] equal rights to happiness and liberty?" a woman in the audience asked the former Pennsylavnia senator after he stated his opposition to gay marriage.

Santorum retorted, "Are we saying that everyone should have the right to marry?"

When the audience member told him yes, he shot back, "So anyone can marry can marry anybody else, so, if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...oed-in-contentious-exchange-over-gay-marriage
Click to expand...

Ok, I give some credit that he had some courage to face the crowd on the issue and at least try to reason it out.

...the candidate found himself in the same dangerous territory when a crowd member asked if he would adhere to the conservative pillar of state's rights in cases when a state legalizes gay marriage and medical marijuana.

"I think there are some things that are essential elements of society to which a society rests that we have to have a consensus on," Santorum said. "That's why I believe on things as essential as 'what is life' and what life is protected under the Constitution should be a federal charge, not a state by state."
Click to expand...

On the first gay marriage question, his clever response does seem a bit fallacious. I'd ask why he thought people needed to marry at all, and why not just everyone have civil unions if they are so great. Or if the answer is that marriage is essentially a religious issue, why government should be involved?

So, if marriage is two people, why two people? Why these two people?

On the second question about abortion, well that's the way it is now so why is he complaining about the federal government telling us what to do. Except what we are being told is not what he likes. So the word "consensus" is a bit of rhetorical nonsense. Does he mean federal oversight of 'essential' things like taking care of your new neighbors being born, or just mandating that families experience the beautiful God given moment of birth without concern about the quality of life after that.

Government involvement begins and ends at conception?
 
Rick Santorum said:
So anyone can marry can marry anybody else, so, if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people.
Click to expand...

Rick Santorum needs to explain how gay marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy, while heterosexual marriage is not.
 
That's a softball, at least for the people that he's courting. Since according to him they're both deviant, allowing one deviation means we must allow all.
 
johnny karate said:
Rick Santorum needs to explain how gay marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy, while heterosexual marriage is not.
Click to expand...

gnome said:
That's a softball, at least for the people that he's courting. Since according to him they're both deviant, allowing one deviation means we must allow all.
Click to expand...
Then he needs to explain why allowing gays to wed is a such danger to the institution of marriage that it needs to be forbidden, but divorce is not.
 
Don't get him started, I'm sure he'd happily outlaw divorce.
 
Pardalis said:
Does that excuse reproducing it as fact?

ETA: actually it's the sixth one.
Click to expand...
Well let's just take a look.
6. Dissing welfare programs that "make black people's lives better"
Quote: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." (Campaign stop in Iowa, Jan. 2, 2012)

Reaction: "This is the sort of subtle racism" that should, but won't, harm Santorum among Republicans, says Steve Benen at Washington Monthly. Why did he single out black people when talking about cutting government aid?
Click to expand...
So you believe his claim he said 'bluh'? Because I've listened to the recorded version and he clearly said "black people's lives" IMO. It doesn't even make sense that it was stuttering over some thing else.

Well according to Anderson Cooper's report on the matter, Santorum had a different story earlier on than his revised version. There's a smoking gun in that initial response.
Cooper showed video of CBS' Scott Pelley asking Santorum about his comments the following day. "I've seen that quote and I haven't seen the context in which that was made," Santorum told Pelley. He added that he might have been responding to a discussion he was having about the Davis Guggenheim documentary "Waiting For Superman," which, according to Santorum, "was about black children."
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
So you believe his claim he said 'bluh'? Because I've listened to the recorded version and he clearly said "black people's lives" IMO. It doesn't even make sense that it was stuttering over some thing else.
Click to expand...

I think you're too biased to make that determination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom