• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Santorum too extreme?

Connery said:
Santorum is wrapped a bit too tight, "in 2003, he argued that the Supreme Court should not overturn state sodomy laws that ban homosexual sex and suggested that such a ruling would create a justification for bigamy, polygamy and incest. At one point, he even raised the specter of bestiality, using the phrase ''man on dog.''

Another thing I find curious about the man is, He and his wife gave birth to Gabriel who died approximately two hours after birth and took the deceased child home where the daughter Elizabeth cuddled the corpse and declared, "this is my baby brother".
Click to expand...
Regarding the state sodomy laws, I tend to agree with him. It does open a door. Similar to a case coming up about impersonating military members. I think the SCOTUS will allow people to do it, as disgusting as it is. Why? They know if they say no one can impersonate a military member, others will begin to do it too. Such as self obsessed Hollywood stars and the like. I actually learned on this thread that looking at the immediate impact of a decision by the courts is not wise. Looking at the long term and broader impact is what the judges are looking at.
The deceased child thing? Yeah, that's a little weird, I must say. I mean, its his family and he can do what he wants. I certainly wouldn't do it, I know that.
 
Connery said:
Santorum is wrapped a bit too tight, "in 2003, he argued that the Supreme Court should not overturn state sodomy laws that ban homosexual sex and suggested that such a ruling would create a justification for bigamy, polygamy and incest. At one point, he even raised the specter of bestiality, using the phrase ''man on dog.''

Another thing I find curious about the man is, He and his wife gave birth to Gabriel who died approximately two hours after birth and took the deceased child home where the daughter Elizabeth cuddled the corpse and declared, "this is my baby brother".
Click to expand...

I say let them marry, if for nothing else the wedding industry, the gifts industry, the tourism industry, smart clothing industry and the catering industry would get a real boost from gay weddings.

But seriously, why would I as a straight person fear gay weddings? If churches don't want to hold them that is fine, you cannot force them but a justice of the peace can marry them instead. Gay people should have the same right as straight people and not be discriminated when it comes to marriages. That Santorum starts about animal sex, bigamy and incest is just too ridiculous for words.
 
poweRob said:
I think he is at least carrying the integrity of believing himself and not running around saying what he thinks people want to hear to advance himself.
Click to expand...

He is a millionaire trying to pass himself off as a blue collar guy.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Regarding the state sodomy laws, I tend to agree with him. It does open a door. Similar to a case coming up about impersonating military members. I think the SCOTUS will allow people to do it, as disgusting as it is. Why? They know if they say no one can impersonate a military member, others will begin to do it too. Such as self obsessed Hollywood stars and the like. I actually learned on this thread that looking at the immediate impact of a decision by the courts is not wise. Looking at the long term and broader impact is what the judges are looking at.
The deceased child thing? Yeah, that's a little weird, I must say. I mean, its his family and he can do what he wants. I certainly wouldn't do it, I know that.
Click to expand...

I am not disagreeing with you at all.....I just find the dog thing a bit weird for a guy who wants to run become president. Will this become a campaign slogan..'man on dog.''


The child situation. I want to respect his wishes and traditions, but, a corpse? This is strange even for a man who wants to run the country.
 
CriticalThought said:
He is a millionaire trying to pass himself off as a blue collar guy.
Click to expand...

Not saying he's flawless in intergrity but so is Romney trying to pass himself off as a blue collar guy. While both are reaching beyond reaching... whose closer to reality? lol
 
Peter King said:
I say let them marry, if for nothing else the wedding industry, the gifts industry, the tourism industry, smart clothing industry and the catering industry would get a real boost from gay weddings.

But seriously, why would I as a straight person fear gay weddings? If churches don't want to hold them that is fine, you cannot force them but a justice of the peace can marry them instead. Gay people should have the same right as straight people and not be discriminated when it comes to marriages.
Click to expand...

No problem here either.

That Santorum starts about animal sex, bigamy and incest is just too ridiculous for words.
Click to expand...


Many problems here....:werd
 
Connery said:
I am not disagreeing with you at all.....I just find the dog thing a bit weird for a guy who wants to run become president. Will this become a campaign slogan..'man on dog.''


The child situation. I want to respect his wishes and traditions, but, a corpse? This is strange even for a man who wants to run the country.
Click to expand...

Man on dog... lol

Ad Romney to the equation and it's "Man on dog on roof of car."
 
Connery said:
I am not disagreeing with you at all.....I just find the dog thing a bit weird for a guy who wants to run become president. Will this become a campaign slogan..'man on dog.''
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Hey, btw, whats up with dogs big role in this primary. Romney leaves em on his roof, Santorum hopes no hanky panky's happening on the roof, Gingrich has a website "Pets with Newt", and Paul ran a "Big Dog" campaign ad
 
MarineTpartier said:
LOL!!! Hey, btw, whats up with dogs big role in this primary. Romney leaves em on his roof, Santorum hopes no hanky panky's happening on the roof, Gingrich has a website "Pets with Newt", and Paul ran a "Big Dog" campaign ad
Click to expand...

Truly reflects the quality of candidates: a bunch of dogs....:2razz:
 
Santorum ain't gonna be the next President sorry guys!
 
Mya said:
Santorum ain't gonna be the next President sorry guys!
Click to expand...

Say that with a straight face....oh and how do you like my slogan "Man on Dog"

SantorumHat.jpg
 
Connery said:
Say that with a straight face....oh and how do you like my slogan "Man on Dog"

SantorumHat.jpg
Click to expand...


just friends man! what's your problem! :lamo ;)


luckovich.gif
 
poweRob said:
Being that it is a rather vague writing with more twists and turns than the LOTR series... I know of no one who does. I know of many who claim to have a FULL understanding of the Bible but those, in general, don't seem to have a FULL understanding of Christ.
Click to expand...

Those who claim a full understanding always seem to have a view that supports their position. Marinetpartier believes what he wants to believe when he wants to believe when it is beneficial for him to believe and will change his beliefs when its is opportune for him. He's a forum's Romney. Just nowhere as smart. Or educated.
 
obvious Child said:
Do you always resort to hyperbole when you have no real...stupid question. I know the answer to that.
Click to expand...

Or you could've read his statements from earlier in the thread and realized he was likely trying to point out that the worries people have that Santorum is going to legislate "What you do in the privacy of your bedroom" is predicated on the same type of specious slippery slope as the notion that "allowing gays to have sex leads to polygamy and gay marriage".
 
Zyphlin said:
Or you could've read his statements from earlier in the thread and realized he was likely trying to point out that the worries people have that Santorum is going to legislate "What you do in the privacy of your bedroom" is predicated on the same type of specious slippery slope as the notion that "allowing gays to have sex leads to polygamy and gay marriage".
Click to expand...

Okay - here let's do an exercise on intellectual honesty:

You, Zyphlin, can try and find all the articles you can on politicians trying to pass laws supporting bestiality, child abuse and whatever other sexual deviance you can.

I, Hatuey, will try and find all the articles I can on a sizable amount of politicians trying to pass laws legislating what legally consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

That way we can determine who is justified in saying the other is engaging in a slippery slope argument.
 
Hatuey said:
Okay - here let's do an exercise on intellectual honesty:
Click to expand...

Before you of all people try to lecture me on intellectual honesty, how about you actually read what I actually wrote. I didn't say that I believe that those two slippery slopes are equal. Quite the contrary, there are numerous posts of mine in this forum stating my issues with Santorum is largely based on the fact that due to his fervent and deeply honest belief on some of these various social issues I believe the slippery slope is actually more likely to occur in situations with Santorum then with others.

I was pointing out the argument it seemed Marine was using, offering up a different alternative then him literally suggesting that "sex in the bedroom leads to people ****ing dogs" as OC was deciding to latch onto as the only possible thing his post meant.
 
Zyphlin said:
Before you of all people try to lecture me on intellectual honesty, how about you actually read what I actually wrote. I didn't say that I believe that those two slippery slopes are equal.
Click to expand...

They're not even remotely comparable. Your opinion is thus: erroneous.
 
Hatuey said:
They're not even remotely comparable. Your opinion is thus: erroneous.
Click to expand...

What opinion of mine is erroneous? The one that stated Marine was potentially trying to make a point OTHER than literally suggesting that people having sex in their bedroom leads to dog sex?
 
Is Santorum too extreme?
Click to expand...

His wife doesn't think so. After all, it was ok with him that his wife got an abortion that he would deny to all other women, if he could.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
His wife doesn't think so. After all, it was ok with him that his wife got an abortion that he would deny to all other women, if he could.
Click to expand...

Oh look, someone stupidly stating something provably false...yet agian.

1. His wife didn't get an abortion
2. Santorum supports legalized abortion solely in the case where the woman's life is in mortal danger
 
Zyphlin said:
Oh look, someone stupidly stating something provably false...yet agian.

1. His wife didn't get an abortion
2. Santorum supports legalized abortion solely in the case where the woman's life is in mortal danger
Click to expand...

Suuuure she didn't, uh-huh. She didn't have an abortion, she just had labor induced to deliver the baby so it could die. :roll:

After the surgery, she came down with an infection, and doctors told Rick that unless the source of the infection — the fetus — was removed, his wife would die and his already-born children would be motherless. The doctor also told Santorum that his wife’s fetus would not survive outside of the womb. According to Santorum, Karen went into labor as a result of the antibiotics, and then doctors gave her a drug that further induced labor. She delivered, and unfortunately the doctors were right.

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/06/liberal-web-site-lies-claims-santorums-wife-had-abortion/
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom