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

[leftysergeant]

Repeating the same word over and over again doesn't make it true.

Nor does denying it make it false.

Relgious bigotry on the level that the mumbling twit has displayed is sociopathic.

 

[Pardalis]

Relgious bigotry on the level that the mumbling twit has displayed is sociopathic.

And you're not a psychiatrist, and you have 1000 rounds of ammo in your garage.

 

[NoahFence]

I have the impression that the way Democrats (or is it the Democratics?) are obsessing over the Republican candidates they are already preparing to lose the elections.

I think a lot of it stems from the fact that this current group of candidates are about as retarded as any I've seen in my lifetime. They have zero chance of winning, outside of Romney. And Romney won't do good because apparently being a Mormon is a negative for whatever reason.

The current crop of Republicans running for office, and in office currently, are awful. Most are simply not good people.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Then explain to me the entire quote and what it means, because it doesn't make any sense.

Santorum was trying to support his political/economic approach to welfare. He wanted to paint cutting back on this type of spending as the old teach a person to fish rather than give a person a fish sort of thing. In doing so, he made the famous verbal fumble. As I said, it sounds like he began to say "black people's lives" and instantly realized that equating black people and the poor sounds racist, and attempted to not say "black".

It doesn't mean that this one is.

I thought this was a skeptics' forum.

Skepticism involves assessing ALL the evidence and provisionally accepting the propositions that the balance of the evidence points toward. In assessing whether or not Santorum started to say "black people's lives" in this instance, examining previous racist remarks he's made is relevant.

No, he was caught off guard by a quote he didn't remember saying. The interviewer probably assumed he did say "black", and Santorum was misled by that assumption and tried to explain it.

So your argument that he didn't say it (or start to say it) is that Santorum found it credible that he might have said it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I have the impression that the way Democrats (or is it the Democratics?)

The proper usage of these terms isn't very difficult or complicated. You can refer to a person as a Democrat. When you refer to something connected with the Democratic Party using the word as an adjective (as in Democratic Party or Democratic candidate, etc.) then the word is Democratic.

What's not proper is using *Democrat as an adjective, as in the *Democrat Party.

So to review: the noun is Democrat and the adjective is Democratic. Not at all difficult to understand.

There is not a 1:1 parallel to the word Republican because the noun (in the singular) and the adjective are the same.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then explain to me the entire quote and what it means, because it doesn't make any sense.
It doesn't mean that this one is.

I thought this was a skeptics' forum.

No, he was caught off guard by a quote he didn't remember saying. The interviewer probably assumed he did say "black", and Santorum was misled by that assumption and tried to explain it.

There are two possible scenarios suggested.

One) He was thinking of blacks in particular having high unemployment, being on welfare, and on his mind because of the documentary as he noted, and his racism revealing comment slipped out. Later he tried to cover it up with the claim it was the result of stuttering.

Two) The comment was the result of stuttering.


Discussion of two hypotheses:
You think the racism explanation makes no sense in context and the initial reaction when questioned was made up on the spot but incorrect. That suggests he believed at the time he could have made such a remark. He didn't say, "There's no way I said that". Rather, he said something more to the effect, "I could have said it and maybe I had racism on my mind because of the film".

I think there is not one shred of evidence in that sound clip of stuttering, hesitating, or a mis-started/aborted word. In addition, I've provided an explanation how "black people" fit within the context of the comments. And, I provided additional evidence racism is an occasional theme in Santorum's other comments.

Am I correct in that your argument is purely based on the claim of incongruent with context?

Ah, so it's not OK for Republicans to call Democrats "Democrats", but OK for you to call them "Repubs"?

Attempt to change the subject noted.

 

[Pardalis]

Santorum was trying to support his political/economic approach to welfare. He wanted to paint cutting back on this type of spending as the old teach a person to fish rather than give a person a fish sort of thing. In doing so, he made the famous verbal fumble. As I said, it sounds like he began to say "black people's lives" and instantly realized that equating black people and the poor sounds racist, and attempted to not say "black".

It sounds as though he wanted to say "lives" before "people" and that's the stumble. It happens all the time.

But the harm is done, now blogs and people all around report this falsehood as fact. Good job!

Skepticism involves assessing ALL the evidence and provisionally accepting the propositions that the balance of the evidence points toward. In assessing whether or not Santorum started to say "black people's lives" in this instance, examining previous racist remarks he's made is relevant.

That's because you're starting from a false premisse. He didn't say "black" so the previous racist remarks are irrelevant.

So your argument that he didn't say it (or start to say it) is that Santorum found it credible that he might have said it?

He was caught off guard, was asked to explain a remark he didn't make. The interviewer mislead him. He tried to justify that remark even though he didn't say it, because he was working on that false assumption that the journalist inferred.

 

[gnome]

...Well if that human life is not a person then I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say 'now we are going to decide who are people and who are not people.

To be honest this doesn't raise my eyebrows about racism at all. It is perfectly ideologically consistent for someone who genuinely believes all abortions are murder to wonder how someone who might feel the Dredd Scott decision more personally doesn't agree.

It is extremism on abortion, not racism. The only POSSIBLE way it could be taken as racist would be if one presumed that he didn't actually believe that, and was using it insincerely to conflate it with the Civil Rights movement, and thus uses the Civil Rights movement as tool.

That's a big if to use to conclude that someone has a problem with people's race. Even if I thought that the above was genuinely true of Santorum I would imagine that tacking on the Civil Rights issue was a matter of cynical expedience rather than a sign of racism.

 

[leftysergeant]

And you're not a psychiatrist, and you have 1000 rounds of ammo in your garage.

You have a problem with an armed liberal? Interesting.

How does this make the bigot from Pennsylvannia not a racist sack of crap?

 

[leftysergeant]

Even if I thought that the above was genuinely true of Santorum I would imagine that tacking on the Civil Rights issue was a matter of cynical expedience rather than a sign of racism.

Pennsylvania is sometimes scribed as Philly and Pittsburg with Alabama up the middle. A republicon has to appeal to the racists to get a lot of votes.

As far as i am concerned, people who kiss up to racists should be considered to at least be carrying racist cooties.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It doesn't sounds as though he wanted to say "lives" before "people" and that's the stumble.

Stumbling over "lives" results in a "bl" sound?

That's because you're starting from a false premisse[sic]. He didn't say "black" so the previous racist remarks are irrelevant.

Except that's not a premise, it's a provisionally held conclusion. I used what it sounds like and his past history as evidence to answer the question as to whether or not he started to say "black people's lives".

You are attempting to do what you accuse me of: begging the question. You're trying to make the conclusion a premise.

He was caught off guard, was asked to explain a remark he didn't make. The interviewer mislead him. He tried to justify that remark even though he didn't say it, because he was working on that false assumption that the journalist inferred.

You already said that. To which my response is still, how is the fact that Santorum found it plausible that he said "black people's lives" evidence in favor of your position (that he did not start to say "black people's lives")?

By the way, I think you meant what the journalist implied, not inferred.

 

[gnome]

Pennsylvania is sometimes scribed as Philly and Pittsburg with Alabama up the middle. A republicon has to appeal to the racists to get a lot of votes.

As far as i am concerned, people who kiss up to racists should be considered to at least be carrying racist cooties.

Perhaps, but the mention of a racial issue does not equal cozying up to racists. Frankly a real racist would not agree with the legitimacy of the civil rights movement, and the analogy would thus fail to outrage them. So I don't see how that particular statement "cozies up."

 

[johnny karate]

He was caught off guard, was asked to explain a remark he didn't make. The interviewer mislead him. He tried to justify that remark even though he didn't say it, because he was working on that false assumption that the journalist inferred.

When the best alternative explanation to you being a racist is that you're a highly-suggestive moron, perhaps President is a job for which you're not suited.

 

[RandFan]

I saw the video in context, did you? It doesn't seem to make sense that he would be talking about black people.

That was paranoid to the extreme.

I don't think he was talking about black people. I honestly don't. I think it's like listening to records backwards. Once someone tells you what is being said then it sounds like it. Even still it doesn't sound like the word "black" to me. I could be wrong.

 

[BenBurch]

You have a problem with an armed liberal? Interesting.

How does this make the bigot from Pennsylvannia not a racist sack of crap?

Heh. If so, He'd have a REAL problem with my reloading rig.

 

[Pardalis]

Stumbling over "lives" results in a "bl" sound?

Why not? It's a stumble, it's not supposed to be well spoken.

Except that's not a premise, it's a provisionally held conclusion. I used what it sounds like and his past history as evidence to answer the question as to whether or not he started to say "black people's lives".

You are attempting to do what you accuse me of: begging the question. You're trying to make the conclusion a premise.

No matter how you want to spin this, you're starting with the assumption that he said "black", and it affects the rest of your thinking.

You already said that. To which my response is still, how is the fact that Santorum found it plausible that he said "black people's lives" evidence in favor of your position (that he did not start to say "black people's lives")?

Because the journalist told him he said that. That's the only thing he could work on was the journalist's claim.

 

[RandFan]

I have the impression that the way Democrats (or is it the Democratics?) are obsessing over the Republican candidates they are already preparing to lose the elections.

Interesting psycho analysis. You may be right. I kinda doubt it. I think people who get off on politics tend to say a lot about politics. Further, and in all honesty, this GOP field is so wanting even Republicans keep lurching back and forth between candidates. I'm not a Democrat but aside from Huntsman and Romney, I find the field insulting. And that's not hyperbole. I really do. A candidate, in the least, should be able to pass a high school biology exam. They ought to accept science. Candidates from a party that prides itself on small govt ought not dictate who can marry the people they love and who can't (again they ought to follow science). Now, abortion is a bit trickier but there IS science to guide the decisions here. We know when a mass of cells begins to think and feel. We know the very real harm suffered by women who do not have access to reproductive health. I'm sorry that the base is unfairly influenced by right-wing idiots but I would hope that a GOP candidate could show some backbone and discuss the science and try to lead. At the very least not make it an absolute principle in the position. Though it pisses me off to no end I'm willing to give some latitude on abortion. The rest? Hell no. And I don't mind saying, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum (and Bachmann too) should never have been on the ballot at all. I'm damn serious about that. I think these people lack the ethics for govt office. I don't mind Paul though I don't think he should win. I would be far happier with Gary Johnson.

 

[johnny karate]

Because the journalist told him he said that. That's the only think he could work on was the journalist's claim.

And for his next trick, the journalist made Santorum drop his pants and cluck like a chicken.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No matter how you want to spin this, you're starting with the assumption that he said "black", and it affects the rest of your thinking.

Not true. Again, my evidence is 1) that's what it sounded like, 2) Santorum has made racist remarks in the past so the hypothesis that he started to say "black people's lives" is consistent, and 3) Santorum himself found it plausible that he said it.

Because the journalist told him he said that. That's the only think [sic] he could work on was the journalist's claim.

Nonsense. If it's the sort of thing he wouldn't say, he would have his knowledge of his own character to reject that the journalist's claim was correct. This demonstrates that it was at least plausible to Santorum that he might've said "black people's lives". For your argument to hold water, it would have to be true that the "only thing" Santorum had to go on about his remarks was a journalist's words. That's ridiculous. A presidential candidate of all people spends a lot of time thinking about, packaging and selling his persona to the public. He can't credibly claim he had nothing else to go on but the journalist's words.

 

[Pardalis]

Not true. Again, my evidence is 1) that's what it sounded like, 2) Santorum has made racist remarks in the past so the hypothesis that he started to say "black people's lives" is consistent, and 3) Santorum himself found it plausible that he said it.

And what if he didn't say black?

Nonsense. If it's the sort of thing he wouldn't say, he would have his knowledge of his own character to reject that the journalist's claim was correct. This demonstrates that it was at least plausible to Santorum that he might've said "black people's lives".

There's nothing inherently racist about talking about "black people's lives", and he said he didn't remember the context, so he thought he could have been talking about black people's lives in any context.