Rick Santorum: Idiot, homophobe, shark-jumper...

carolinacurious: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...ilibuster_fight

Jackass managed to "jump the shark", go (stay) off the deep end and lose me in his metaphor, all at the same time

Just keep in mind that this is the man whose last name means "a mix of fecal matter and lubricant" that often makes an appearance after ass-fucking.

I can't figure out his application of that metaphor no matter which way I look at it. just what one would expect from a man whose last name means "a mix of fecal matter and lubricant" that often makes an appearance after ass-fucking. I can't believe he doesn't change his name already, what a weirdo

(I would also like to be pedantic as hell and point out the fact that, according to the rules of engagement under which we fought the second world war, the germans technically DID have the right to "respond to allied invasion" given that they'd captured france's capital and hence were the de facto rulers of france. of course, the other allied nations had already declared war on germany long before they seized paris anyway, rendering the point pretty moot on paper, but then adolf always was full of hot air for any occasion).

Wasn't it just last month-or-so that the most honorable Senator Bird was saying virtually the same thing about the Republicans?

Of course, when he did it the dems just said he was being 'passionate' in his beliefs.

But Santorum is an idiot, homophobe, shark-jumper, weirdo .... ??

You guys have just got to stop calling people names when they don't agree with you. One doesn't have to be insane or evil to disagree with your philosophy.

Evil's not necessary, but it is sufficient.

Incidentally, not two months back, someone on here called Senator Byrd a Klansman, and you said nothing. Is name-calling worth raising an objection over only when it's a Republican who's being called the name?

carolinacurious: From: http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle8222.htm
(an opinion piece BUT with relevant quotes)

So, the Republican's CAN complain about Byrd but I'm not allowed to complian about Santorum?

Let's also note: "GOP Chair Ken Mehlman has labeled Byrd's remarked "reprehensible and beyond the pale," remarks joined by Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Santorum is best known for equating sexuality between consenting gays with bestiality between humans and dogs.

So, I'm not supposed to call him on his hypocrisy?

God dammit! He's a fucking Homophobe!, and I do believe that that is correct usage of internet slang, "shark-jumping". He compares homosexuality to bestiality on a regular basis so while he MAY not be an idiot, fuck him, I'll call him whatever the fuck I want.


And, as to whether or not Santorum's use of Nazi was as correct as Byrd's (I doubt it but ...) I couldn't tell ya'. Santorum's comparison doesn't make any sense to me, that was sort of the point of the thread.

Sorry, Pecker - gotta disagree with you on this one. Santorum IS an idiot and a homophobe. An elected law-making official must be expected to explain and justify his votes. Santorum systematically refuses to do so. He does not explain his vehemence in denouncing gay citizens, and in doggedly pursuing his pro-discrimination stance, other than to say it goes against his beliefs. Well, so do divorce and contraception, but I'm not sure I have seen him supporting constitutional amendments to outlaw either of those.

IMHO, if any segment of the population wants a constitutional amendment defining marriage, then the following criteria should also appy:
If the objection to same-gender marriage is "tradition," then we should go WAY back for the tradition and define marriage as "the arranged marriage of one man and as many wives as are politically necessary.
If the objection is "for procreation and raising children," then the definition should exclude childless couples any of the legal protections and benefits of marriage until they have a child. Any person who has a child out of wedlock should automatically be legally wed to the other parent of the child until that child reaches majority age.
If the objection is "protecting the sanctity of marriage" then the definition should also outlaw divorce, and anyone who has ever been divorced should be required to vote against it.
If the objection contains any biblical reference, then the First Amendment should be repealed first.
But mainly, anyone who supports any type of legislation designed to curtail the rights of ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS must first satisfacorily demonstrate that it does not violate 14th Amendment rights. Santorum does none of this. He picks and chooses which biblical canon is convenient and pleasing to him, and disregards all others. I see it as an all-or-nothing proposition, either you believe and follow your chosen religion, or you don't. Using bits and pieces of it to harm other people is just EVIL.

true, but santorum does happen to be both ... and that would apply regardless of his political affiliation. the guy's a proven headcase; it's the people like him that are making the republican party look stupid, not their opponents.

And he's got his one eye on the White House. Concentration camps for us can't be far behind. And are probably closer than any of us know.

Wait . . . Jump the shark? I didn't know Santorum was a TV series.

But he did manage to invoke Godwin's law, go off the deep end, and lose me.

So would it be appropriate to refer to him as Senator Butt Fuck? }(

So would it be appropriate to refer to him as Senator Butt Fuck? }(
[/b][/quote]

No, he's not as pleasant as the butt fuck itself: santorum is the messy aftermath. Maybe Senator Ass Slime would be more appropriate.

Evil's not necessary, but it is sufficient.

Incidentally, not two months back, someone on here called Senator Byrd a Klansman, and you said nothing. Is name-calling worth raising an objection over only when it's a Republican who's being called the name?
[/b][/quote]

Maybe he said nothing because once one joins the klan (like Byrd did) one becomes a klansman.

Yeah, but "ex" or "former" is the proper prefix. Or even "recovering".

I'm a political moderate -- socially liberal, fiscally conservative -- and probably the thing I miss LEAST about living in Pennsylvania is having Santorum "representing" me. He was a constant embarrassment. It's beyond me how such a mild-mannered and moderate state can repeatedly elect someone so extreme, abrasive, and (often) offensive. Then again, it's well documented that he owns a two-bedroom shack in a Pittsburgh suburb and a mansion in a Washington suburb -- so I think it's a stretch to say that the family's "values" are rooted in Pennsylvania.

Steve (now in New Hampshire, home to the nation's most insipid congressional delegation)