Rick Santorum - Page 5

Tolerance of Intolerance is NOT okay.

I used NOT again.

Well you see Shawn, I have to comment on what you add to the discussion. Since you add no IDEAS, just name calling and headlines, that is what I comment on. When you care to post something else, I will gladly comment on something else.

Nick

He's a theocratical radical. The Sullivan article went into that- (Sullivan who is a CONSERVATIVE)

You mean I add no IDEAS that could defend Mr. Santorum. Well if you're looking for that I'd advise you to visit one of the extreme right forums on the internet. There you will find ALL SORTS of justification for crazy acts.

You sympathize with Abortion Terrorists, remember?

You could be correct that the case will be decided on the equal protection basis but I seriously doubt that would be considered a victory at all. I posted the link from LAMDA that showed the state of sodomy laws in various states. Texas would just do what other states have done and that is declare all sodomy to be illegal instead of just same sex sodomy.

As for the tradition of comparing those acts, perhaps the tradition is people who make their living off of being "activists" using slippery slope reasoning to declare people intolerant when they have done nothing wrong. That is certainly the case here. I would declare that more of a tradition than what you have stated.

Likewise the homosexual community simply won't admit that it does what alot of us "heteros" have done which is have sex before the age of consent. We have no doubt that there are some 25 years old men out there attemping to copulate with 13-15 year old girls. If you suggest the same could possibly occur with two men, you are intolerant.

The thing is that many men in the homosexual community, when speaking about their first encounters say it was a younger/older combination. They should just work on growing understanding and knowledge in this area. It could be for a number reasons but the age issues with homosexuality are much less conventional. It could be because some of them try to live as heterosexuals first. It could be because they are discovering they are bisexual, lots of issues but by being unwilling to admit that they experiment early in life with sex like most of us do, they are setting themselves up for these issues.

They are part of the problem promoting this ignorance and they help to allow it to continue.

As for the vast uninformed middleground, the soccer moms and so forth. I seriously doubt this issue (Santorum comments on case) will even be around by the next election. However suppose it is, these folks barely pay attention to day to day politics. There seem to be no subtlety concerning messages around election time. Democrats will want this issue to disappear because it is very hard to get across to the general public the difference betwee supporting say civil unions and not have someone slippery slope you into saying you support gay marriage. Especially when there will be some elements of the party declaring they do support gay marriage.

These soccer moms and said types have polled as very unsupportive of gay marriage even while being tolerant on homosexual acts and relations. So I think it would be a non-starter for them and just distract from their economy message.

Do you really think they want an election scenario where Bush is talking about defending against terrorism and the economy and Dems are trying to explain how they support civil unions but not marriage.

I think Repubilcans would be salavating at such a scenario.

Nick

Go get some sun, you've been staring at that screen to long.

You can try to link me to whoever you want. Your inability to discuss the intricacies of ideas means you limit yourself to large broad, unsupportable, extreme alternatives. If you want to militantly declare all abortion wrong because you cannot discuss differences in support and morality along the time frame of a pregnancy, then that if fine. Revel in your own limits.

See in the world of ideas you are not the sole arbiter. So I am glad to let you type foolishly and reveal your own limitations.

Nick

Wrong button

No...one...is!

Most of us here (except you two) would submit that Santorum's comments lend themselves to it.

but....that.....doesn't.....matter.....


it's.....way.....more......fun.....to......type... ..like......this.....and.....sound....all.....cool ......

You provide the worst examples.

First you want me to predict the future.
Then you're talking about my views being absolute, when they apply only to Santorum's comments.

All the while, you bitch and moan about no one supporting your nowhere near pro-homosexual cause.

So it doesn't quite work when you call MY views simplistic.

Everyone except "us two"? Sure about that? I'll roleplay as giant for a moment and ask for sources, links and suggest you conduct a study to make sure...otherwise, it's just "opinion".



Hey, don't yell at me.

I don't know about Santorum's comments. I think to people with a certain political mindset and worldview, maybe they do. He is, after all, a Republican. And we all know that they'll get far less leeway on comments regarding homosexuality and race. I could see it being divided along belief lines. I could also see a prominent, up-and-coming Democrat saying the same thing and be let off a tad easier (and you know it).

I also tend to fall toward the "don't wake up every morning, looking - and expecting - to be offended or feel the need to fight injustice, Republicans and evil corporations on every level" side of life, so, no, I probably - no, make that definitely - don't get all of this.

Maybe I need to be gay? Maybe I need to have thinner skin? Maybe I need to be a Republican-basher?

I don't know.

All I DO know is that as soon as I heard about this story and who said it, I immediately went "oh shit...here we go...gonna get ugly and out-of-hand REALLY fast..."



Here's the real, absolute thing (forget what you think you know or what you THINK I'm doing or supporting). If I AM supporting this kind of stuff, better not tell my best friend. She and her "roommate" might get mad at me.

I had a more pessimistic view because I knew that people view gay-bashing in a different light than racist comments.

Nothing good will come from this.
Santorum will not step down.

I'll have to give my Senator a protest or two the next time he comes into town.

Look, I often disagree with trumpetman but...come on....seriously...he has a point. You are on of the easiest people here to parody because you are so predictable. You may not like that but it's true. Now, for a stunning rendition of the meow mix song:

meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow meow....

WHY THE HELL DOES SANTORUM HAVE TO STEP DOWN BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW THAT YOU DO NOT LIKE? I find his comments repugnant but in an alleged Republic where we have this alleged Free Speech, the people that whine about equal rights the most (re: YOU) are the first in line to want to take away someone's job whenever they say anything YOU DISAGREE WITH.

I SHALL DIVIDE THE PIE IN TWO...AND EACH...SHALL RECEIVE...DEATH!!! I'll eat the pie.

Well I'll leave this as my last comment on the matter, because hey real life calls.

I want you to predict the future....what I was doing is showing the lack of validness concerning your convoluted question. As I stated before I pretty much consider this to be incomprehensible, but whatever...


I addressed that Santorums remarks do not criminalize gay sex. Rather it was already illegal and he was commenting on a pending case. You wanted to ignore that so... it is hard to deal with the rest of the comment.

You want me to show how action (A) does not do something because action (B) lends itself to something bad when misconstrued.

Bush's remarks don't condemn homosexuals because his statement doesn't address homosexuals. Since the majority of us are not paranoid-delusionals we don't have a grand conspiracy theory in which code-talk can prove something or not prove something.

Bush expressed support for Santorum, period. Santorum commented on what a case would legalize and keep illegal, period.

The connecting the dots conspiracy part. Well that is in your head Shawn and I can't prove something to you that is in your head. Perhaps Pfflam could help you with the philosophy part.

I spoke about your views being absolute when you brought up another thread regarding abortion. However if you want to admit (as you did) that your views regarding Santorum are absolute, then I am more than willing to let you show your limited and extreme thinking there as well.

As for people supporting my cause, it isn't my cause. My state (California) is very progressive in this matter. He is your senator which would reflect that your view in the minority view even within your own state. In case you haven't been bright enough to realize it, not supporting every word you type does not equal hating that cause.

Does the fact that your wonderful Dean supports only civil unions and not marriage for homosexuals mean he is a homophobe? If I declare I support marriage for homosexuals, does that give me the right to label him as one.

Why don't you, considering Dean doesn't support homosexual marriage, prove to me he isn't a homophobe. He obviously doesn't want gays treated as equals and in fact set up that "straw man" of a civil union ceremony to distract from the real issue of gay marriage and equal gay rights.

See Shawn, I can explain both sides of an issue because my thinking isn't limited to name calling and mindless, paranoid assertions that you ask others to prove or disprove for you.

And you want to be a lawyer? I feel for your clients someday. Their money will not be well spent.

Nick

That doesn't make my liberal views "simplistic," it makes them consistent And I detest this culture that appreciates BR's NEO MACHO crap.

Women's Rights?
Pussy.

Gay Rights?
Pussy.

That's pretty simplistic, BR.

I believe in homosexual marriage and equal pay for equal work. You're just a pussy because you want to silence anyone that disagrees with you.

I really don't know where to begin considering:

• Your selective recalling of arguments presented in the thread
• Your use of logical fallacies while addressing points long after you should have addressed them.
• Your refusal to admit to blatant name-calling throughout the thread

Don't ever instant message me again. I don't want any contact from you. You don't resort to dissing my career prospects just because you disagree with me. You know nothing about me.

That was low.

I think that's great.

But I don't support silencing anyone.

I support Santorum's right to say whatever he wants, but I think his remarks should be reason for him to step down from his leadership position. I'm not alone on this one.

You also support saying one thing and doing another.

YOU CAN SAY WHAT YOU WANT BUT IF I DON'T LIKE IT YOU MUST LOSE YOUR JOB!

So everyone advocating for Santorum to step down from his post thinks like that?

so to tie this in to another thread, could i say i support the Dixie Chick's right to say what they want about the president, but that they should step down as country singers and defacto role models because i disagree with what they said?

come on, that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

if you don't like what he said, vote him out.

before that though, i suggest you learn the difference between factual statements regarding case law and value statements about morality.

if you really are working to be a lawyer you're going to need to learn two things.

1. stop taking an emotional stance on arguments. it works on "The Practice", it doesn't work in real life. reasoning and logic are your only recourse.

2. you need to learn to at least acknowledge validity in another viewpoint. keeping yourself hogtied to a mindset would cripple you in any trial setinng, and keep you from finding the case law you need to prove the other side wrong. if you can't understand what someone else is saying, you'll have no rebuttal.

How would people feel if a politician* stepped up and said 'niggers shouldn't be able to marry white people'?

EDIT: *changed from 'someone' to 'a politician'.

No, just you Mr. Mix. Mix, Meow Mix. I don't make idiotic sweeping generalizations like some other people here do.

It comes down to this. There are mainly two ways of interpreting his statements: either he is gay-bashing or calling the legal situation as he sees it. You automatically assume gay bashing and call for his head on a spike. Others automatically assume he's just speaking legalese and demand for him to be left alone. I fall somewhere in between. I'm sure his view on homosexuality did play into his decision to speak out the way he did, however, whether your like it or not, there is some legal backing for his position.

Meow mix, meow mix, please deliver.

And many people support the Dixie Chicks' right to say whatever they want, but they think their remarks should be reason for them to suffer some fallout or some lost record sales (the musicians equivalent to Santorum being removed from his leadership position).

They, too, are not alone on that one.



I hate to drag out the "h" word, but there you go...

Dixie Chicks ding Bush. People respond. You don't like it or agree.

Santorum offends gays. People respond. You support it and agree.

i would reread the mantra at the ACLU on the subject, and educate the person in question.

http://archive.aclu.org/library/aahate.html

of course, those two statements are nothing alike.

if you really think that example you just gave is at all similar to what's being discussed here.......

I'd think he's an ignorant ass of the highest order. And I think the situation would QUICKLY take care of itself. He'd be out of a job by that afternoon.



Was that a rhetorical question or just a post-count padder?

Isn't it a bit different for one individual to 'bash' another individual rather than an individual to 'bash' a group or race or whatever? Is there a psychological or simple vocabulary term for attacking a group in this manner?

I would think he's an idiot and if that view does not represent the views of his state, let those from his state do what they will. However, this is a horrible analogy. There isn't any legal backing here. There is the blatant use of racial epithets here. In other words, you have come up with a seemingly poignant analogy which upon closer examination is utter crap specifically designed to turn this into something it isn't.

Take your false analogy and go home.

It's not a diss, it's reality. Look at you, you are out of control. You are calling names, detesting our culture, disagreeing with those who support your own views and see you as a likeable young man at times. (which I suppose you still are even if you don't want any IM's again)

Lawyers first and foremost must understand that it isn't just about the evidence and what you think about it. You are in this forum declaring that people hate homosexuals and that your Senator should lose his job for nothing more than thinking out loud about a court case. That is facist.

If you think that acting like a facist and flying off the handle at one small personal jab is going to make you a good lawyer, you are wrong. If a simple little comment is going to throw you off of your game plan (of which you have none to be thrown off of in this thread) then good luck defending people.

If you were to go back and look at all your posts, they are simple little one - three sentence assertions. They have no proof, they have no reasoning, they have nothing.

You know Shawn you are helping me become a little more liberal. I seriously doubted "white privelege" and that people in this country would get ahead just because they are white. With you supposedly being a student receiving a scholarship and being on your debate team because of your supposed intellectual brilliance, I've had to reconsider that view because I see nothing within your intellect that makes you deserving of those things.

There are many more deserving women and minorities that I have encountered that are much brighter, lucid, and deserving than you. I think you should give back these items you obviously received for no other reason than being white.

It is obvious there is some real talent out there and perhaps they are pushing you along because they know it takes a white face to get some place. I suppose they will be the talent behind the blank eyes staring at the teleprompter someday. Perhaps you will have some truly gifted paralegals who help you figure out and win cases since you expose your own limits here. It is obvious that you have what you have because of your parents owning a $400k home and not because of merit.

Nick

maybe he just made that stuff up?



in all honesty, arguments like that wouldn't hold up for 5 min. on a highschool debate team.

Hopeful someone with a different opinion will stand up and challenge that view.

He is elected. He is not only free to express his opinion but is expected to. I sincerely hope that he won´t get elected again but that is an issue between him and his voters.

That this should have any consequences against him is as stupid as "Mein Kampf" is illegal in Germany and not counting Shi?as in when forming a democracy in Iraq

I think the gist and overall meaning still stand, bunge. But for the sake of argument, what if the Chicks' dinged all conservatives or, say, pro-lifers? Or rednecks? Or blue collar types? Or Christians?

Then?

It was a serious question actually. No one should lose their job for what they say. There should be no law that says you're immediately fired for saying X, Y, or Z. But the political party has to support what the politician says. He's a spokesperson for the Republican party.

What he said is 'gay bashing'. What he meant might be legally justifiable, but what he said was derogatory. Does the party stand by what he says? The President does. His party apparantely does. Fine. He won't lose his job.

But don't twist the meaning of his words to pretend they weren't derogatory.

What examination? Why is it a poor analogy? OK, we can remove the word nigger.

How would you all feel if a politician said 'Blacks shouldn't be able to marry whites. If they're allowed to, they could do anything.'

Thanks Anders for being somewhat rational and sane.

That's what I think too.

I believe my FIRST post in this thread dealt with the need to discuss privacy law in this issue. So you're saying that I haven't acknowledged that? I believe it was YOU who pointed that out when the issue was still young, and me who acknowledged that by editing my post two days ago.

But after reviewing the arguments I think, just like you, that "his view on homosexual played into his decision to say what he did."

The only difference is that I along with many many others think that he should step down from his leadership position. It's certainly not me alone here.

Then I'd still agree with them.

If you're wondering about Dick losing his job, I don't think he should. But if he's not asked by the party to step down from his leadership position (I don't even know what that position is), then his views are representative of the party.

In any case, individuals in the country should decide if they do or don't want to listen to the Chicks' albums, not Clear Channel Communications.

OMG. Hahahaha. Incredible. I think that's pretty much what others have been saying here. But when THEY do it, they're supporting "gay bashing".





Don't break your arm giving Anders props just because he often shares your side of it and - this late in the game - steps in and says something that most everyone here (except maybe Shawn) believes to be so.

Wow. That was pretty blatant.



He IS free to express his opinions (and suffer any fallout). But he's elected and if this gets him tossed out now (or voted out in the future), then that's the price he pays for saying what he said.

He can keep his position, but the party should be held accountable. They should be honest and just admit that they don't believe gays should be legally allowed to have sex.