Rick Santorum

145791014

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 274
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    No, Shawn. I've read and read his statement again (the word "gay" was added after the fact, I believe) and I don't think he was talking about it in the way it's been painted. I think he was talking in a broad, general way about laws and privacy. I DON'T think he was saying some horrible thing.



    In any case, in the past couple of weeks I've admitted to being wrong about something. I do it here more than you ever have, that's for sure.



    When I'm wrong - and it's proven fact and not just someone's "opinion" - I'll always be the first to cop to it. It's the graceful, cool thing to do.



    Thing is, I just can't help it if that's a rare event.



  • Reply 122 of 274
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Sorry to do this but the aimless chit chat has forced me to do it:

    The part that disgusts me most about what Santorum represents is the notion that somehow if we just legislate some kind of MOral code then the profoundly complex psychology of human sexuality will just dissapear

    when in actual fact it is the kind of moral repressivenes that is simply another expression of human desires

    its just returning after being repressed in negative, violent (though vieled as such) form, dressed up as morality and ethics



    it is screwed up and repressive and is just a pale version of the same set of psychological complexes that drive the extreme anti-woman, anti-sex, anti-life psyche of fundamentalist Islam



    Santorum's notion of healthy natural sexuality is of course "heterosexual" . . . that is "normal", that is paternal and traditional . . . but sexuality is not that simple . . .not even in straight males is sexuality that simple . . Santorum's a projection of a sexless life of 'Normalcy and wholesomeness" onto the reality of human Libido . . which is not so clear cut: his vision is the product of repression run rampant, a denial of life and of the body and, ultimately, of Death . . . its antiseptic and unatural and we shuld not have to force our complex human psycho-sexual beings into such a model of existence . . .

    it is the perspective that Santorum thinks is real that is truly perverse . . not sexual "perversions"
  • Reply 123 of 274
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    You write as being "forced to do it...".







    You didn't say anything THAT grandiose or earth-shattering.







    I don't completely disagree. I don't know this Santorum guy particularly well - outside of the news and C-Span - but I know - from recent, past events - he'll be badgered and harangued until he's gone. If anything, that's what I'm posting about here: the whole "some people can say stuff and it glides over, others can say stuff and they get nailed..." kind of thing that irks me.



    Like Lott and others, he'll get harrassed and berated right out of his position.



    Fine, if that's the outcome. I don't agree with it and I think it's a little wild, considering. But wouldn't be the first time a right-winger goes down - so to speak - for stepping in it...and is helped along his way by a pissed-off, vocal and an untouchable, politically protected/powerful minority group of some sort (with plenty of help from a sympathetic press and all).
  • Reply 124 of 274
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates



    I hate to have something that I said passed over because ouu have to have little quibbles about nothing that jump to page 4 all of a sudden



    and yes, if you actually understood what I was talking about it would probably 'shatter' your world

    The notion of repression has itself been repressed and almost systematically misunderstood

    mainly, because the reality of what is repressed is too difficuult for the ego to comprehend . . . to understand one's own repressions is to risk shattering one's own defense mechanisms, subterfuges and one's little ego
  • Reply 125 of 274
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates



    Like Lott and others, he'll get harrassed and berated right out of his position.



    Fine, if that's the outcome. I don't agree with it and I think it's a little wild, considering. But wouldn't be the first time a right-winger goes down - so to speak - for stepping in it...and is helped along his way by a pissed-off, vocal and an untouchable, politically protected/powerful minority group of some sort (with plenty of help from a sympathetic press and all).




    What the hell are you talking about?



  • Reply 126 of 274
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pfflam

    and yes, if you actually understood what I was talking about it would probably 'shatter' your world

    The notion of repression has itself been repressed and almost systematically misunderstood

    mainly, because the reality of what is repressed is too difficuult for the ego to comprehend . . . to understand one's own repressions is to risk shattering one's own defense mechanisms, subterfuges and one's little ego




    Sorry to disrupt your flow and knock your thoughts to another page. I had no idea that me and Shawn would kick it from 3 to 4. I'll pay attention.







    As if you know anything about it. Or, specifically, me. Nothing "shatters" my world. And my ego isn't that little. If you only knew...







    In any case, you do write well. Almost like a book or something!



    And Shawn, quit doing that cloying, passive/aggressive thing and playing dumb. You know exactly what I'm talking about in my quoted post above. Knock it off with the devils...I write very plainly and use normal, everyday words. I don't use $10 words or sentences where 25-cent ones work just fine...
  • Reply 127 of 274
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    What the hell are you talking about?







    Okay, why not...



    Shawn, you know what kind of world it is. You know what's acceptable and what's not. You know who is powerful and has influence and can make big deals out of smaller deals. I know you don't believe in the notion "political correctness" much, but there are people, groups, organizations, etc. that - these days - you simply don't piss off, offend, annoy or in any way come across like you're "against" them.



    I would, at this point in history, consider gay activists one of those groups. A lot of power, a lot of clout.



    If Santorum would've said something to lemon growers in Florida that pissed them off, there wouldn't be much they could do about it and there wouldn't be much coverage.



    But a gay issue gets huge notice and he pissed off the wrong group. They will fight back. Loud and hard and with resources.



    That's what I'm talking about.



    It's not even earth-shattering or unknown.



    It's a very powerful, influential group (can take a talk-radio psychiatrist off the TV, can influence language in TV and movies, can lobby for certain things, can oppose certain individuals and institutions and generate lots of attention doing so, etc.).



    And right now, it seems, gay is "hot" in pop culture and so forth. Several major movies, a hit sitcom, some cable shows, actors and musicians are more open and comfortable coming out. Hell, Time magazine did an entire big story on it, didn't they? So it's a big, talked-about issue and I'd venture to guess that there are quite a few gay journalists, editors, entertainment writers, reporters, columnists and other assorted opinion-givers and -shapers out there who would definitely get behind their fellow activists or citizens in matters such as these. A sympathetic, in-step-with press. That's not even a bad thing.



    This isn't hard.



    Don't assume that everything out my mouth is tainted with evil. I'm not even bitching about it (read my original post). I'm just saying that if I were in the public eye, I wouldn't go out of my way to offend or anger gay groups or whatever. Hell, I wouldn't even do it period because that's not who I am, but in the public eye, you have to REALLY be careful how you say things.



    People go nuts and come for your head on a stick if you screw up.



    I will say this: I think there are indeed people out there - of all stripes - who are so tied to their one, major identity trait...or what THEY see as that being. Think about it: we all know someone who can't go through the day without talking about or acknowledging their gayness, blackness, handicap, conservativeness, openness, womanness, etc.



    I do think when those people are confronted with something that smacks a little bit of an offense or affront, they're so tied to their [fill in the blank] that it's a big, horrible personal attack on them directly. I've seen it a bazillion times. Anyone honest will say the same thing.



    And, for the record: no, the movie "White Men Can't Jump" didn't piss me off with its title. I thought it was a pretty funny movie. But could you ever replace the word "white" with another group and the word "jump" with another verb for another movie or book?



    No, not hardly. It wouldn't fly AT ALL. Ouch!



  • Reply 128 of 274
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    Stop it or I'll come round and snog you.



    Snog? Is that legal in Texas?
  • Reply 129 of 274
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    What is "snog"? I head Nicole Kidman say that once. Is it "kiss"?



  • Reply 130 of 274
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pscates

    What is "snog"? I head Nicole Kidman say that once. Is it "kiss"?







    Australian for a kiss where tongue is involved.
  • Reply 131 of 274
    CNN: White House Says Gay-Bashing A-OK



    Essentially.



    Quote:

    Asked about the president's views on homosexuality, Fleischer said a person's sexuality is "not a matter the president concerns himself with" and that he judges people on how they act as a whole



    The implication being homosexuality is a blemish among other factors by which the President would judge a person.



    The ramifications are clear:



    Gay bashing is okay. It's an issue that's still in "debate."



    Yowza.



  • Reply 132 of 274
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    CNN: White House Says Gay-Bashing A-OK



    Essentially.







    The implication being homosexuality is a blemish among other factors by which the President would judge a person.



    The ramifications are clear:



    Gay bashing is okay. It's an issue that's still in "debate."



    Yowza.







    Shawn,



    If you are going to add something to the discussion, please do so. If you are going to practice writing headlines, (not even articles, just headlines) for the DNC then don't consider yourself to be persuading anyone.



    Nick
  • Reply 133 of 274
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Shawn,



    If you are going to add something to the discussion, please do so. If you are going to practice writing headlines, (not even articles, just headlines) for the DNC then don't consider yourself to be persuading anyone.



    Nick




    So you're saying that the White House by failing to speak out against Santourum does support gay rights? Or are you just fixated on a "headline?" Come on now, headline writing is not the issue. I think the implications of the White House's inaction speak volumes.
  • Reply 134 of 274
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce



    I think the implications of the White House's inaction speak volumes.




    You're not alone. I think the White House considers this guy 'the future' of the party while Lott was expendible.
  • Reply 135 of 274
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    So you're saying that the White House by failing to speak out against Santourum does support gay rights? Or are you just fixated on a "headline?" Come on now, headline writing is not the issue. I think the implications of the White House's inaction speak volumes.



    What you are showing in an incapacity to think at all. When the headline for the article is CNN:White House expresses support for Santorum that is what it means.



    You simply put, CNN:White House Says Gay-Bashing A-OK.



    You said the suggestion from this is that Bush supports bashing gays.



    From the article

    Quote:

    Fleischer said a person's sexuality is "not a matter that the president concerns himself with" and that he judges people on how they act as a whole.



    I could have sworn that this is exactly what gay rights groups want. They want to be seen as whole people and judged accordingly instead of being seen as just "gay" or condemned for who they love.



    Of course like most liberally biased articles, they spend a lot more time letting critics bash the President than they do getting his views on the issue.



    Note that they "balance" the President giving his support with the following "commentary" within the same article.



    The Human Rights Campaign - saying Bush isn't inclusive

    The Family Research Council - saying Bush isn't defending families

    Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland

    "many Democrats" "other Democrats"

    and of course the two Republicans Senators out of 51 who happen to think it "unfortunate"



    Could Bush get any less of a voice in an article that is supposed to be about him and who he supports?



    Here is an example of an article without an agenda.



    Bush voices support...and...thats the news



    Nick
  • Reply 136 of 274
    Incapacity to think?



    That's the problem eh?



    I'll keep that in mind.



    Quote:

    I could have sworn that this is exactly what gay rights groups want. They want to be seen as whole people and judged accordingly instead of being seen as just "gay" or condemned for who they love.



    I suppose it is. And YOU TELL ME, trumptman, how do Bush's remarks (as spoken to us by ari fleischer), which support Sen. Santourum, NOT condemn homosexuals when Santourum's remarks lend themselves to CRIMINALIZING consensual gay sex?
  • Reply 137 of 274
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    CNN: White House Says Gay-Bashing A-OK



    Essentially.







    The implication being homosexuality is a blemish among other factors by which the President would judge a person.



    The ramifications are clear:



    Gay bashing is okay. It's an issue that's still in "debate."



    Yowza.









    Jeez-louise...



    You know, in the past months I've come to expect a certain level of patella-spasms from you. But this might rank right up there with some of the classics.



    The "implication" that Bush doesn't care or concern himself with someone's gayness is bad? You can actually make that leap and just put those words in his mouth (or at least his thoughts)?



    If it makes you feel any better, I do the same thing: I DON'T factor in someone's skin color, sexual orientation, etc. to determine how I feel about them. When, exactly, did this become a bad thing? I thought that was what we should be striving for?



    I totally judge my opinion on others by what they do, say, conduct themselves, etc.



    I think that's what Fleischer was getting at. Leave it to you to spin that into some sort of weird, hateful direction.



    You're completely off the charts these days, man. You're funny with that whole "whapita" thing, but I honestly don't think you have any ties to reality and are one of those rare people whose entire essense and identity is tied up in "dinging Bush" and "praising your guys"...NO MATTER WHAT.



    You would go 86 miles out of you way to paint a conservative in a bad light. And you'd travel that same exact distance to excuse or explain away one of "your guys" blatantly caught acting like an asshole or an idiot.



    It's freakishly transparent and only gets more so with each passing week.



    Having said all that, I still like you because you provide great entertainment and you're a nice guy, deep down. But holy-freaking-cow...YOU are a nutcase and completely out to lunch.



  • Reply 138 of 274
    I like you too Pscates, but I think that Bush deep down wants to appease the religious right. Like I said, how do Bush's remarks (as spoken to us by ari fleischer), which support Sen. Santourum, NOT condemn homosexuals when Santourum's remarks lend themselves to CRIMINALIZING consenual gay sex? I think it's clear what Bush believes- and that is whatever the religious right wants him to believe.



    It's gay bashing.



    (Bunge is with me on this one, your other favorite person)
  • Reply 139 of 274
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    pscates and SPJ - it's like watching those Tonya Harding vs. Paula Jones celebrity boxing matches. I can't help but watch, but when I do, I always cringe, and afterwards, I always feel guilty.
  • Reply 140 of 274
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce

    Incapacity to think?



    That's the problem eh?



    I'll keep that in mind.







    I suppose it is. And YOU TELL ME, trumptman, how do Bush's remarks (as spoken to us by ari fleischer), which support Sen. Santourum, NOT condemn homosexuals when Santourum's remarks lend themselves to CRIMINALIZING consenual gay sex?




    That was what I was getting at with the whole incapcity thing... First of all how do you prove a negative. Prove to me you are NOT going to go kill someone with a gun ten years from now.



    Santorums remarks do not criminalize consexual gay sex. It is ALREADY criminalized in some states. (DUH!) That is why he was commenting about the case before the Supreme Court.



    Here is some info about the case from a source I think you would consider unbiased about this issue, even though they happen to be a party in the case.



    LAMDA-state by state sodomy



    As you can see the case addresses two issues, Right to privacy and equal protection. LAMBDA obviously wants to win on both issues and a gay plaintiff lost previously on the right to privacy issue. Santorum (for about the fifth time here) commented on the privacy issue and mentioned all the types of acts that could no longer be legislated against if the privacy matter were upheld.



    He was not linking the acts or saying gay men are pedophiles or any of that other slippery slope nonsense. He just mentioned that there are several other acts where the law has been effected.



    Have you considered these other areas of law Shawn? Have you considered how a woman could be harmed in divorce proceedings if adultery cannot be considered grounds for alimony, and custody hearings then it could significantly harm women who have been flung aside for the younger woman.



    This does affect the other areas like polygomy because right now even if you brought another woman into your house, declared her your wife when you slept with her it would affect your legal standing with your first wife. She could sue for divorce under adultery law. That would not be true anymore.



    It's not just bashing, one group's rights and one law. Pointing that out does not equal gay bashing.



    Nick
Sign In or Register to comment.