Psycho Santorum - POTUS?

[funjumper101 15]

There is no way the american electorate could ever vote for this lunatic. Unfortunately, due to the reich wing's attack on education, and their immense propoganda machine, people have become so stupid that they actually vote for the crazy man, because he looks pleasant and acts like he has a clue.

The reich wing's poster boy is clearly off his rocker. Porn causes brain damage? Then again, maybe he is onto something. There has to be some explanation as to why any sane person with an 6th grade education, or better, would vote for ANY republican candidate these days.

http://www.ricksantorum.com/enforcing-laws-against-illegal-pornography

Quoted first paragraph>>>

America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences. Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.

[pirana 0]

He is amazing. Kind of like a Teflon Don. He says the stupidest shit, then even faster than people can point out how ridiculous it is, he's off on another topic.

He speaks from his feelings, not from facts. It is OK for people to let their feelings be known; it's just in his case they are often stated as fact, are completely wrong, and are rooted in a loony fundamentalist agenda.

His election to the Presidency would be ultimate proof that for the U.S. electorate soundbites and feelings are more important than substance and knowledge.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Channman 2]

> "His election to the Presidency would be ultimate proof that for the U.S. electorate soundbites and feelings are more important than substance and knowledge."

I agree with the above statement, it is exactly how Barack Obama was elected. The American people can be quite stupid from time to time.

As Forest Gump would put it, "Stupid is as Stupid does"

[Gravitymaster 0]

Been indulging in a lot of porn lately, have you?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Been indulging in a lot of porn lately, have you?

Not that there's anything wrong with that. The porn world is so..... uncomplicated.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Been indulging in a lot of porn lately, have you?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Just make sure you stop at the point that you only need glasses.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Been indulging in a lot of porn lately, have you?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Just make sure you stop at the point that you only need glasses.

I'm afraid that threshold has already been crossed.

[Andy9o8 0]

You need to accept the fact that, if Romney is the nominee and Obama wins, Santorum will almost certainly be the presumptive GOP front-runner in 2016, with the office wide-open.

I miss Dan Quayle. Like baseball and porn, he's so.... uncomplicated.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Been indulging in a lot of porn lately, have you?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Just make sure you stop at the point that you only need glasses.

It's not the glasses it's the contacts that make porn 'interesting'

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Erroll 53]

Quote

....male porn ...

You're into male porn??

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

....male porn ...

You're into male porn??

Bwhaaaaaaaa fat fingers

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[lawrocket 3]

Santorum is a kook. Recall a few weeks ago when he said that JFK’s speech justifying his candidacy as a Catholic to Baptist ministers made him want to “throw up.” Santorum said that JFK believed that people of faith have no role in the public square. So I went back and read the speech, and it turned out that JFK did nothing of the kind.

JFK said, “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute – where no Catholic prelate would tell the President how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

This was Kennedy reflecting the classic analysis of the First Amendment limits on the government mixing with church. The “establishment clause” means exactly that it says: that government cannot favor or “establish” a particular church in America. The “free exercise” clause means that people are free to practice any religion, or not practice any religion. But not Santorum’s allegation that religion has no role in American government.

He went on to say:

Quote

“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish – where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source – where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials – and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

Doesn’t sound like a call to drive religion out of government.

He ended the speech with:

Quote

“If this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole Nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.”

JFK was saying that there is no religious test to be president. None. This is a lesson that should be understood by not only the religious right but also by the secular left – yes, secular left, there is no religious test as to qualifications for presidency. That means that a religious person is not disqualified from the presidency! How about that? Religious beliefs are NOT a Constitutional test for a president.

I personally think that the secular left should read the speech as well as the secular right. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html

Why should the Left take lessons from it? Because religious tolerance cuts both ways. JFK said, “I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so.” So what does this say about a President forcing religious organizations through insurance companies to provide contraception?

And most importantly, what does it say about the secular left who would put a person’s religious beliefs as a test for the presidency? The left won’t vote for a Christian any more than the right would vote for a Muslim. It’s religious intolerance on all sides.

Why won’t I vote for Santorum? I’d vote for Obama over Santorum because Obama is self-aware enough to not speak a single word that hasn’t been pre-written and vetted and put onto a teleprompter.

Santorum is the scariest fucking guy I’ve seen as a mainstream candidate for a long time. But I would hope that the Left takes note of it.

Quote

people have become so stupid that they actually vote for the crazy man, because he looks pleasant and acts like he has a clue

Yeah. Check out the last three presidential elections. Hell, the last presidential election was so well propgandized that he won a damned Nobel Peace Prize because of his stated ideas! (This was before things like Libya, Iran posturing, international assassination, summary execution of American citizens abroad, etc.)

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

I want to have an interview with Santorum. "Mr. Santorum, for purposes of enforecement we must know exactly what sex acts would constitute illegal pornography. So let's go through the list.

We'll start off with something that does not even depict intercourse. Would a Cleveland Steamer be illegal?"

And just run down the list. Even better, have Santorum describe in detail exactly what would be banned.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You need to accept the fact that, if Romney is the nominee and Obama wins, Santorum will almost certainly be the presumptive GOP front-runner in 2016, with the office wide-open.

similar statements were made about Palin for this wide open election. But even this collection of kooks were more stately that she, and other than demanding TV time while pretending to run, she stayed in her place.

Santorum is getting his time in the sun as a GOP leader (of sorts) and he may get to be on Fox in the upcoming years, but his zenith is sometime this year.

[Andy9o8 0]

I was referring to the predictable pattern that the second place runner for the GOP nomination one election year becomes the nominee the next time the nomination is open. This happened with Reagan after having challenged Ford in 1976, Bush-1 who was the second place contender in 1980, Dole, who was a bridesmaid in 1992, and McCain, who came in 2nd to Bush-2 in 2000.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

I was referring to the predictable pattern that the second place runner for the GOP nomination one election year becomes the nominee the next time the nomination is open. This happened with Reagan after having challenged Ford in 1976, Bush-1 who was the second place contender in 1980, Dole, who was a bridesmaid in 1992, and McCain, who came in 2nd to Bush-2 in 2000.

Pretty interesting observation. On the other side, it's rare that a loser on the Dem side ever runs again. In fact most of the time (not always), with maybe the exception of Kerry and Ted Kennedy, it ruins their elected political career shortly afterwards.

[lawrocket 3]

Hmm. That's interesting, as well. I'll see if I can put together the list of losing Democratic POTUS nominees:
(1) Kerry - still active as Senator
(2) Gore - no longer public servant but active in public eye
(3) Dukakis - finished
(4) Mondale - was not elected to anything since 1976.
(5) Carter - no longer public servant but active in public eye
(6) McGovern - got elected to another 6 year term after losing to Nixon

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences. Addiction to pornography is now common for adults and even for some children. The average age of first exposure to hard-core, Internet pornography is now 11. Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking.

I don't see anything particularly "psycho" in this quote. Watching a lot of porn probably does cause brain changes, as does any repeated behavior, and those changes may be harmful. And I think there is truth in everything else he states as well . . .

However, I generally don't believe in protecting adults from themselves, and I think that most adults are not likely harmed by viewing porn, so I'm not for banning it. (Or for banning many of the other individual choices that may be harmful to some people.) I don't think kids should be viewing porn, but for the most part, that's the parents' responsibility.

[kelpdiver 2]

you're researching the wrong pattern. Andy was talking about nomination process losers, not November election losers. And I don't think Gravity's pattern really holds up.

Al Gore ran multiple times from President (1988, 1992, 2000, I believe). He took the loser becomes VP becomes default nominee approach.

H Clinton is trying a similar approach via SecState.

Biden lost in 1988, probably ran a few other times (2008 again?), is still kicking.

It does seem like the Democrats are inclined to picking someone new, rather than someone who has run multiple times. Unless they are part of the White House for a different Democrat.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Hmm. That's interesting, as well. I'll see if I can put together the list of losing Democratic POTUS nominees:
(1) Kerry - still active as Senator
(2) Gore - no longer public servant but active in public eye
(3) Dukakis - finished
(4) Mondale - was not elected to anything since 1976.
(5) Carter - no longer public servant but active in public eye
(6) McGovern - got elected to another 6 year term after losing to Nixon

-Mondale remained active in the public eye for a while. Ambassador to Japan 1993-96 plus a couple other appointed positions. Narrowly lost 2002 Senate election to Norm Coleman, standing in for incumbent Sen. Paul Wellstone, who died 11 days before the election.

- Humphrey was elected back into the Senate in 1976.

- Adlai Stevenson became JFK's ambassador to the UN, which he thought was a figurehead position beneath his qualifications; however, he gave a brilliant performance there during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Rick Santorum/Michele Bachmann 2012.

Republicans should just go for it.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------