Be a Supporter!
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 00:35:30 Reply

At 1 hour ago, MrFlopz wrote: The republican party believes in the traditional American values that they just made up. That's why they only care about your rights if you're a wealthy heterosexual man.

fixed it for you


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 00:37:35 Reply

At 1 minute ago, Iron-Hampster wrote:
At 1 hour ago, MrFlopz wrote: The republican party believes in the traditional American values that they just made up. That's why they only care about your rights if you're a wealthy heterosexual white man. However, money can buy certain levels of whiteness.
fixed it for you

There, I fixed it for both of you :p

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 00:55:54 Reply

At 14 minutes ago, Camarohusky wrote: Sticking to one's principles is a limited virtue. In a country as dynamic as ours in times as dynamic as ours, a good leader needs to know when to change in order to fit the current of the world. George W Bush had a hard time adjusting and doing the right thing if he didn't start doing the right thing.

George Bush, the poor fool, he was duped on so many counts by his old pal Cheney, Iraq, "enhanced interrogation", the second round of tax cuts for the mega rich, etc., but some credit should be given to Bush in that he did eventually wise up (a little bit) and started to buck Cheney on a few things. For one thing, that is why we're now having a discussion about war with Iran instead of a discussion about how the hell to get out of Iran and what a dumb idea it was to start another pointless war.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 02:33:27 Reply

At 1 hour ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1 minute ago, Iron-Hampster wrote:
At 1 hour ago, MrFlopz wrote: The republican party believes in the traditional American values that they just made up. That's why they only care about your rights if you're a wealthy heterosexual white man. However, money can buy certain levels of whiteness.
fixed it for you
There, I fixed it for both of you :p

Yes, that is true. They do care about sufficiently wealthy minorities. And i do not concede the Christian point. I agree that there are some non Christians, such as Jews, that they care about, but for the most part they will always prioritize Christians over Muslims and atheists.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Davoo
Davoo
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 18:08:37 Reply

At 17 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1 minute ago, Iron-Hampster wrote:
At 1 hour ago, MrFlopz wrote: The Republican party was founded by anti-slavery activists, and abolishing slavery and establishing civil rights--against the will of the Democrats--was one of their core objectives. Then what? They all magically switched sides, for some reason, apparently?
fixed it for you
There, I fixed it for both of you :p

Fixed it once and for all.

The republicans only care about white, heterosexual Christian males my ass. I guess they did pass the Gay People Should Die act, the We Should Only Be Christian law and the Milk Skin is the Best Skin action, didn't they? All this made up shit out of no where? All these claims that never have any backing to them?

I generally lightly tiptoe on all political issues, and simply ask my opposition to explain their beliefs to the point that their ideology collapses under its own contradictions, but the 'republicans are racist, sexist bigots' spiel I have absolutely no patience for. It's as bent and twisted a fragment of history as any that currently exists in America today.

n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 18:36:43 Reply

At 25 minutes ago, Davoo wrote:
At 17 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1 minute ago, Iron-Hampster wrote:
At 1 hour ago, MrFlopz wrote: The Republican party was founded by anti-slavery activists, and abolishing slavery and establishing civil rights--against the will of the Democrats--was one of their core objectives. Then what? They all magically switched sides, for some reason, apparently?
fixed it for you
There, I fixed it for both of you :p
Fixed it once and for all.

The republicans only care about white, heterosexual Christian males my ass. I guess they did pass the Gay People Should Die act, the We Should Only Be Christian law and the Milk Skin is the Best Skin action, didn't they? All this made up shit out of no where? All these claims that never have any backing to them?

I generally lightly tiptoe on all political issues, and simply ask my opposition to explain their beliefs to the point that their ideology collapses under its own contradictions, but the 'republicans are racist, sexist bigots' spiel I have absolutely no patience for. It's as bent and twisted a fragment of history as any that currently exists in America today.

They probably get their facts from SNL, Bill Maher, and reruns of Space Ghost Coast to Coast. Can't blame 'em, just educate them. Forget that democrats voted against the civil rights movement, it doesn't matter to them because Hollywood is left, and they're a bunch of winners in Hollywood.


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 18:38:17 Reply

At 22 minutes ago, Davoo wrote:
At 17 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1 minute ago, Iron-Hampster wrote:
At 1 hour ago, MrFlopz wrote: The Republican party was founded by anti-slavery activists, and abolishing slavery and establishing civil rights--against the will of the Democrats--was one of their core objectives. Then what? They all magically switched sides, for some reason, apparently?
fixed it for you
There, I fixed it for both of you :p
Fixed it once and for all.

The republicans only care about white, heterosexual Christian males my ass. I guess they did pass the Gay People Should Die act, the We Should Only Be Christian law and the Milk Skin is the Best Skin action, didn't they? All this made up shit out of no where? All these claims that never have any backing to them?

I generally lightly tiptoe on all political issues, and simply ask my opposition to explain their beliefs to the point that their ideology collapses under its own contradictions, but the 'republicans are racist, sexist bigots' spiel I have absolutely no patience for. It's as bent and twisted a fragment of history as any that currently exists in America today.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum have been very candid in their racism against blacks, hispanics and arabs. Sometimes it's a slip of the tongue. Other times it's "spanish is the language of the ghetto". Santorum seems to believe Christianity should motivate political decisions. He has said that he disagrees with separation of church and state. I'm not saying that he doesn't care about non Christians at all. I'm saying he prioritizes Christians above non Christians by backing legislation motivated purely by Christian beliefs. Also, Don't Ask Don't Tell IS anti homosexual. I consider anti abortion legislation to be anti woman, but that is debatable.

Historically, the Dixie Democrats have been the ones holding the whip and it was the Republicans who banned slavery. But that's HISTORY. The current Republican party is not the party of Lincoln. They've completely switched.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 18:44:50 Reply

At 3 minutes ago, n64kid wrote:
They probably get their facts from SNL, Bill Maher, and reruns of Space Ghost Coast to Coast. Can't blame 'em, just educate them. Forget that democrats voted against the civil rights movement, it doesn't matter to them because Hollywood is left, and they're a bunch of winners in Hollywood.

I get my facts from listening to the Republicans talk. "Spanish is the language of the ghetto". "Palestinians are an invented people". "I will bring back don't ask don't tell". "All these blaaaaa---- ummm people on welfare" etc. etc. etc.

They've expressed their bigotry time and time again. It's not even subtle. How can you disagree with a statement like "Rick Santorum is against homosexuality", or "Newt Gingrich is racist against hispanics". Listen to the words that come out of their mouths! They don't sugar coat it. Newt Gingrich is openly racist against hispanics and he has made this clear time and time again. I watch Republican debates. They make their bigotry clear there. How can you deny this?


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 18:53:53 Reply

At 3 minutes ago, MrFlopz wrote:
I get my facts from listening to the Republicans talk. "Spanish is the language of the ghetto". "Palestinians are an invented people". "I will bring back don't ask don't tell". "All these blaaaaa---- ummm people on welfare" etc. etc. etc.

They've expressed their bigotry time and time again. It's not even subtle. How can you disagree with a statement like "Rick Santorum is against homosexuality", or "Newt Gingrich is racist against hispanics". Listen to the words that come out of their mouths! They don't sugar coat it. Newt Gingrich is openly racist against hispanics and he has made this clear time and time again. I watch Republican debates. They make their bigotry clear there. How can you deny this?

Do you want racist quotes from democrats in office and on TV? Obviously not 100% of either side is free of racist and ignorant comments, I don't think I need to explain that to you.

For the record I think Santorum is an idiot and support Romney. With regards to Newt talking about black people should try to get paychecks and not food stamps, what's wrong with that? Can't a fat white guy who used to be speaker of the house touch on a societal concern without being called a bigot?


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 19:15:25 Reply

At 15 minutes ago, n64kid wrote:
At 3 minutes ago, MrFlopz wrote:
I get my facts from listening to the Republicans talk. "Spanish is the language of the ghetto". "Palestinians are an invented people". "I will bring back don't ask don't tell". "All these blaaaaa---- ummm people on welfare" etc. etc. etc.

They've expressed their bigotry time and time again. It's not even subtle. How can you disagree with a statement like "Rick Santorum is against homosexuality", or "Newt Gingrich is racist against hispanics". Listen to the words that come out of their mouths! They don't sugar coat it. Newt Gingrich is openly racist against hispanics and he has made this clear time and time again. I watch Republican debates. They make their bigotry clear there. How can you deny this?
Do you want racist quotes from democrats in office and on TV? Obviously not 100% of either side is free of racist and ignorant comments, I don't think I need to explain that to you.

For the record I think Santorum is an idiot and support Romney. With regards to Newt talking about black people should try to get paychecks and not food stamps, what's wrong with that? Can't a fat white guy who used to be speaker of the house touch on a societal concern without being called a bigot?

I don't think Romney is racist... But then again I don't know anything about him. I consider him to be a marionette... He says what he's paid by his campaign contributors to say. But he's definitely better than Santorum and Gingrich and he has said some true things about business and the free market.

What I'm saying is that racism is fairly prominent in the Republican party, more so than democrats. I know democrats who are racist. And I know republicans who are not. I'm just saying that the Republican party tends to cater to the needs of white Christians. Santorum and Gingrich are DEFINITELY racist. That shouldn't be representative of the whole party but it is concerning that they have a fair amount of support.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 19:31:23 Reply

At 10 minutes ago, MrFlopz wrote:
What I'm saying is that racism is fairly prominent in the Republican party, more so than democrats. I know democrats who are racist. And I know republicans who are not. I'm just saying that the Republican party tends to cater to the needs of white Christians. Santorum and Gingrich are DEFINITELY racist. That shouldn't be representative of the whole party but it is concerning that they have a fair amount of support.

I really see the two parties as different means to the same ends. Both want to help the middle class, help the working class better their lives, and allow people to gain a lot of money if they work hard. Democrats propose tax and spend, Republicans propose limited government. Less taxes can be perceived "tax breaks for wealthy", but it's just the philosophy of reducing the government burden on businesses. The way I see it, Democrats try and give people a fish, Republicans try to teach people how to fish. Neither party is 100% right, but I ignore race entirely because no party has a platform that caters to races. The race card, is just an unfortunate byproduct of political leverage. Democrats can sway people into voting for them by claiming the other side is racist, not by proposing that their economic plans will produce maximum social cultural and economic utility. Republicans try to propose plans that they think betters America's culture, values, and economic growth, but then someone plays the race card. Race is irrelevant, but it's brought up anyways and becomes an issue.


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 19:53:00 Reply

At 11 minutes ago, n64kid wrote:
At 10 minutes ago, MrFlopz wrote:
What I'm saying is that racism is fairly prominent in the Republican party, more so than democrats. I know democrats who are racist. And I know republicans who are not. I'm just saying that the Republican party tends to cater to the needs of white Christians. Santorum and Gingrich are DEFINITELY racist. That shouldn't be representative of the whole party but it is concerning that they have a fair amount of support.
I really see the two parties as different means to the same ends. Both want to help the middle class, help the working class better their lives, and allow people to gain a lot of money if they work hard. Democrats propose tax and spend, Republicans propose limited government. Less taxes can be perceived "tax breaks for wealthy", but it's just the philosophy of reducing the government burden on businesses. The way I see it, Democrats try and give people a fish, Republicans try to teach people how to fish. Neither party is 100% right, but I ignore race entirely because no party has a platform that caters to races. The race card, is just an unfortunate byproduct of political leverage. Democrats can sway people into voting for them by claiming the other side is racist, not by proposing that their economic plans will produce maximum social cultural and economic utility. Republicans try to propose plans that they think betters America's culture, values, and economic growth, but then someone plays the race card. Race is irrelevant, but it's brought up anyways and becomes an issue.

If those were the only differences, I'd be a Republican. But when the Republicans are focusing on promoting Christianity, keeping gays unmarried and out of the military, and telling women they can't abort a baby after being raped (Rick Santorum) I can't stand behind the party. I was a McCain supporter until Sarah Palin got thrown into the mix. I agree with the core values of the Republican party. But there's all this extra crap to appeal to the religious crowd.

Plus the MOST IMPORTANT reason I oppose the Republican party is foreign policy. Obama hasn't been great on this front but he hasn't started any invasions. I feel a president like Rick Santorum would definitely get us into war with Iran. Or at least his rhetoric would give Israel the green light to invade and us to follow. Mitt Romney might not. But he seems more likely to start a war than Obama. I'm not taking that chance. Invading Iran would ruin us. Iraq was damaging enough but Iran would be a lot worse.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-21 20:01:49 Reply

At 5 minutes ago, MrFlopz wrote:
If those were the only differences, I'd be a Republican. But when the Republicans are focusing on promoting Christianity, keeping gays unmarried and out of the military, and telling women they can't abort a baby after being raped (Rick Santorum) I can't stand behind the party. I was a McCain supporter until Sarah Palin got thrown into the mix. I agree with the core values of the Republican party. But there's all this extra crap to appeal to the religious crowd.

There's different factions within the Republican party. You have the liberal republicans, fiscal conservatives, libertarians, neocons, paleocons, moderates etc.

Evangelicals piss me off, but I'm not going to change parties because I disagree with the religious right. I think Palin's a screwball and I facepalm when people think she's this uber smart lady. I have respect for her as she apparently did a great job as Governor and was regarded highly among her constituents, but it wasn't the best choice for McCain. There were positives when he announced her as VP though, but it didn't last long enough.

Plus the MOST IMPORTANT reason I oppose the Republican party is foreign policy. Obama hasn't been great on this front but he hasn't started any invasions. I feel a president like Rick Santorum would definitely get us into war with Iran. Or at least his rhetoric would give Israel the green light to invade and us to follow. Mitt Romney might not. But he seems more likely to start a war than Obama. I'm not taking that chance. Invading Iran would ruin us. Iraq was damaging enough but Iran would be a lot worse.

I believe in neoconservatism, but obviously not everyone does. Being smart on an invasion and having a plan is key though.


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
Davoo
Davoo
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-23 19:31:04 Reply

At 2 days ago, n64kid wrote: They probably get their facts from SNL, Bill Maher, and reruns of Space Ghost Coast to Coast. Can't blame 'em, just educate them. Forget that democrats voted against the civil rights movement, it doesn't matter to them because Hollywood is left, and they're a bunch of winners in Hollywood.

Oh, dear precious Hollywood.

Liberal hypocrisy reaches incredible heights when they come out and say that the Citizens United decision wasn't constitutional, that "corporations aren't people, and therefore aren't entitled to free speech rights, and THEREFORE shouldn't be able to fund political and social ideology that they believe in."

So, James Cameron can make a two-hundred-and-fifty million dollar propaganda film for green energy, but Foster Friess (who, by the way, is a person) shouldn't be able to put more than a few hundred dollars into the campaign for the candidate he likes. Oh, and liberals are making donations by the million to Obama 2012, so I don't think it matters much anyway.

At 3 minutes ago, MrFlopz wrote:
I get my facts from listening to the Republicans talk. "Spanish is the language of the ghetto". "Palestinians are an invented people". "I will bring back don't ask don't tell". "All these blaaaaa---- ummm people on welfare" etc. etc. etc.

So saying,

"We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and so they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto."

Makes you racist? And saying,

"I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, IâEUTMm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job."

Doesn't make you not-racist?

"Palestinians are an invented people"

So what is the basic history of Palestinians? What is it about them that makes them real and legit?

"I will bring back don't ask don't tell"

Who will? Rick Santorum? Because he also said,

"I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military."

"All these blaaaaa---- ummm people on welfare"

Here's the full quote:
http://youtu.be/MdfZmcuomcE

And here's Rick Santorum 'denying' saying that:
http://youtu.be/JnjEYcT6n-s

So is he lying? To be honest, when I first watched the 'blauh' video, I didn't even notice it. Rick Santorum frequently has little blurbs and blops in his speech.

Furthermore, he kept referring to the people in the room about welfare, and the people in the room were mostly right. So even if he said black, would it make any sense?

Historically, the Dixie Democrats have been the ones holding the whip and it was the Republicans who banned slavery. But that's HISTORY. The current Republican party is not the party of Lincoln. They've completely switched.

When did they switch? Or how long did the switch take to fully happen?

Davoo
Davoo
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-23 19:37:58 Reply

Sorry for the double posting, I just wanted to say that the word,

I'm

Seems to get glitched into a garble of gunk for no reason.

I am

Is what you can put in its place, to understand the sentence.

Also...

At 1 day ago, MrFlopz wrote: Invading Iran would ruin us. Iraq was damaging enough but Iran would be a lot worse.

Why?

Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-23 22:13:51 Reply

At 1 hour ago, Davoo wrote: Liberal hypocrisy reaches incredible heights when they come out and say that the Citizens United decision wasn't constitutional, that "corporations aren't people, and therefore aren't entitled to free speech rights, and THEREFORE shouldn't be able to fund political and social ideology that they believe in."

Where's the artistic value of a campaign ad?

Rich conservatives are perfectly free to make their own big budget films that they can slant to their hearts content. Too bad that when they make movies like that, they SUCK ASS.

So, James Cameron can make a two-hundred-and-fifty million dollar propaganda film for green energy, but Foster Friess (who, by the way, is a person) shouldn't be able to put more than a few hundred dollars into the campaign for the candidate he likes.

Yes. Friess is free to make art that has whatever political undertones he wants as a way to inspire and influence the public with it's message. What he should not be able to do is to effectively bribe politicians to push his personal agenda by sinking a practically unlimited amount of money into propping up their campaigns. You don't think that politicians are going to feel beholden to their rich donors and try to appease them when they are completely dependent on their support?

Oh, and liberals are making donations by the million to Obama 2012, so I don't think it matters much anyway.

What little money Obama is going to get from the Bill Mahers of the world is going to be a drop in the ocean compared to the money that wall street and the banks are going to give him. The Democrats are just as bought as the Republicans.

So saying,

"We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and so they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto."

Makes you racist?

You're implying that Spanish is the language of the ghetto, so... yes.

And saying,

"I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, IâEUTMm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job."

Doesn't make you not-racist?

That's a great idea. Whenever anyone says something racially insensitive or prejudiced towards black people, you should just end the sentence by saying, "...BUT, I really like black people, and I want them to be super duper happy". Problem solved, you are automatically forgiven for anything you've said previously. Genius.

"Palestinians are an invented people"
So what is the basic history of Palestinians? What is it about them that makes them real and legit?

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. You are aware that Palestinians actually DO exist, right?

"I will bring back don't ask don't tell"
Who will? Rick Santorum? Because he also said,

"I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military."

The assumption being that gays wouldn't be able to control their sexual urges if they were allowed in the military. Or is he implying that nobody should be in the military who has any kind of sexual preference? Perhaps an army made up entirely of asexuals would be Rick Santorum's plan?

"All these blaaaaa---- ummm people on welfare"
Here's the full quote:
http://youtu.be/MdfZmcuomcE

And here's Rick Santorum 'denying' saying that:
http://youtu.be/JnjEYcT6n-s

So is he lying? To be honest, when I first watched the 'blauh' video, I didn't even notice it. Rick Santorum frequently has little blurbs and blops in his speech.

Furthermore, he kept referring to the people in the room about welfare, and the people in the room were mostly right. So even if he said black, would it make any sense?

He was definitely about to say "black" people, but caught himself as he was saying it. He was talking about people on welfare, and in his mind, that translates to black people.

Historically, the Dixie Democrats have been the ones holding the whip and it was the Republicans who banned slavery. But that's HISTORY. The current Republican party is not the party of Lincoln. They've completely switched.
When did they switch? Or how long did the switch take to fully happen?

Black people, tagging along with the progressive movement, started to vote Democratic at or around when Woodrow Wilson was elected, but it was with FDR and his social welfare reforms that the black vote started to move en masse towards the Democratic party, and finally, Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights act of 1964 (as well as Barry Goldwater's racist southern strategy of 1964) was what finally sealed the deal.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/04/blacks-and-the-democratic-p arty/


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Famas
Famas
  • Member since: Nov. 26, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-23 23:29:02 Reply

At 3 hours ago, Davoo wrote:
Liberal hypocrisy reaches incredible heights when they come out and say that the Citizens United decision wasn't constitutional, that "corporations aren't people, and therefore aren't entitled to free speech rights, and THEREFORE shouldn't be able to fund political and social ideology that they believe in."
So, James Cameron can make a two-hundred-and-fifty million dollar propaganda film for green energy, but Foster Friess (who, by the way, is a person) shouldn't be able to put more than a few hundred dollars into the campaign for the candidate he likes. Oh, and liberals are making donations by the million to Obama 2012, so I don't think it matters much anyway.

You do realize that PAC restrictions and limits on corporate donations to campaign funds are there to prevent somebody like Pepsico from literally purchasing an elected official, right? Are you seriously advocating that special interest groups should be able to use their nigh limitless pool of funds to override the political process and shape the candidacy as they see fit? I'm confused as to why you think keeping commercial enterprise from bleeding over into social decisions is a bad idea, nor why you find it appropriate to compare this to James Cameron making a shitty space movie. Conservatives are free to make all the propaganda films they wish, and they already do in fact make exactly that.

What you seem to be asking for would be directly stripping away democratic voting power from those who don't have thirty billion dollars to vote with.

So saying,

"We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and so they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto."

Makes you racist? And saying,

Yes. Yes it does. I'm not sure when the last time you went through the public education system was, or if you indeed ever went through it at all, but foreign immigrants/non english speaking students ALREADY are immersed in english via enrollment in ESL classes (or recently renamed to ELL for "English Language Learners" in most school districts) and are expected to put serious effort into making progress in their english language development in said courses. It would be absolutely idiotic to strip lingual assistance and study aid away from a Burmese student who did not speak a shred of english upon entering the system and needs those tools in order to succeed academically.

There is no official language in the US. Deal with it.

"I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their creator with the right to pursue happiness. And if that makes liberals unhappy, IâEUTMm going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job and learn some day to own the job."

Doesn't make you not-racist?

Your double negative makes no sense. I'm assuming you're asking if that quote makes Gingrich sound racist.

The answer is yes. First of all, his claims were that he wanted to get African-Americans onto paychecks instead of food-stamps, which is completely ignorant because the vast majority of said African-American welfare recipients already have jobs that don't pay enough to cover basic living expenses, hence the need for government assistance. Second of all it completely ignores the extenuating circumstances that bar these citizens from more lucrative jobs and forming successful careers. It's also extremely condescending of him to believe that he's totally the right man for the job in order to improve the living conditions of people below the poverty line if they would only work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Those are extremely easy comments for somebody who was born into a rather comfortable family wealth to say.

So what is the basic history of Palestinians? What is it about them that makes them real and legit?

If you're an Israeli supporter, the whole "Palestinians aren't real" position is an extremely hypocritical one to hold. Anti-Semites and rather extreme groups that oppose Israel like to deny the existence of historical things as well.

You know, like the holocaust.

"I would say, any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military."

First of all, this is completely incorrect as marriages are perfectly fine under US military code, as is boning your wife. There isn't a law against fraternizing either. If you're part of the 1st Infantry Regiment, there's nothing that says you can't get busy with a lady you met from the 63rd IR. So we've established he already has no clue what he's talking about.

Second of all, you're attempting to make the quote appear non-discriminatory by saying "hey he thinks all relations are inappropriate!". So if that's the case, please show me a quote where he makes the claim that he would move to add restrictions to HETEROsexual relationships within the military. You won't, yet he's made it abundantly clear he wishes to act against homosexuals specifically. That's discrimination.


"R.I.P. Gunther Hermann - 2002-2052 He wanted orange. The world gave him lemon-lime"

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-24 00:20:42 Reply

At 4 hours ago, Davoo wrote:
At 1 day ago, MrFlopz wrote: Invading Iran would ruin us. Iraq was damaging enough but Iran would be a lot worse.
Why?

It's a larger country with a significantly larger population. All of the problems with an Iraqi invasion would apply except here we're overthrowing a government that has the support of the people and is not engaging in murdering its citizens. The Iranian people hate us more than that Iraqis ever did pre-invasion (for very good reasons). There is no chance that we'll be "greeted as liberators". That didn't happen in Iraq, but the Iranians would oppose an American invasion more strongly since we have toppled a democratically elected Iranian government before. Steeper opposition and in a country that is more populous and has a lower opinion of us. It will certainly be worse than Iraq.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Davoo
Davoo
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-24 15:00:45 Reply

At 3/23/12 10:13 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Where's the artistic value of a campaign ad?

So if something is art, it can promote anything it wants to with unlimited funds?

Rich conservatives are perfectly free to make their own big budget films that they can slant to their hearts content. Too bad that when they make movies like that, they SUCK ASS.

Not all of them. Nor are they all budget either. In fact, Hollywood wasn't as liberal in the 80's and 70's as it is now.

Yes. Friess is free to make art that has whatever political undertones he wants as a way to inspire and influence the public with it's message. What he should not be able to do is to effectively bribe politicians to push his personal agenda by sinking a practically unlimited amount of money into propping up their campaigns. You don't think that politicians are going to feel beholden to their rich donors and try to appease them when they are completely dependent on their support?

If no rich people ever made big donations to politicians, are those politicians beholden to no one, then?

That's a great idea. Whenever anyone says something racially insensitive or prejudiced towards black people, you should just end the sentence by saying, "...BUT, I really like black people, and I want them to be super duper happy". Problem solved, you are automatically forgiven for anything you've said previously. Genius.

So you're saying when someone says something not racist, but had said racist (or language-ist) things in the past, they're lying?

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding. You are aware that Palestinians actually DO exist, right?

Whether or not they exist wasn't really what Newt means when he's said 'they were invented'. From what I understand of his accusation, he claims the Palestinians were simply a collection people from other backgrounds merged together, and given a made-up history, so that they could claim to 'own' certain parts of the middle east.

That's what I understand from his accusation, but I really know almost nothing about this. Please tell me, if you know.

The assumption being that gays wouldn't be able to control their sexual urges if they were allowed in the military. Or is he implying that nobody should be in the military who has any kind of sexual preference? Perhaps an army made up entirely of asexuals would be Rick Santorum's plan?

So wait, did Don't Ask Don't Tell require people to stop being gay? Or simply to not talk about it?

He was definitely about to say "black" people, but caught himself as he was saying it.

How can you prove that? Really now.

He was talking about people on welfare, and in his mind, that translates to black people.

How can you prove that?

Black people, tagging along with the progressive movement, started to vote Democratic at or around when Woodrow Wilson was elected,

Why did they? Since the democrats were the ones who supported slavery, why did they decide to vote for them?

but it was with FDR and his social welfare reforms that the black vote started to move en masse towards the Democratic party

That's exactly what I hear a lot of conservatives say about Democrats; that welfare is helpful to some, but can often be used to make people dependent on government.

"Do you want free money?" Asks the government. "Vote for me and you'll get it. Then vote for me again and you'll get more money."

Naturally, people then become dependent on this money, and therefore have to vote for the person supplying them their money. So in a way, it's like a lighter form of owning a person; they give you a vote and you give them money.

That, at least, is the accusation I hear all the time. What is your response to it?

and finally, Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights act of 1964

Weren't there a few other Civil Rights acts, two of which were signed by Eisenhower?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act

as well as Barry Goldwater's racist southern strategy of 1964

What was his strategy? What was racist about it?

Davoo
Davoo
  • Member since: Jul. 5, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Game Developer
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-24 15:04:56 Reply

Double posting for lack of room.

At 3/23/12 11:29 PM, Famas wrote: You do realize that PAC restrictions and limits on corporate donations to campaign funds are there to prevent somebody like Pepsico from literally purchasing an elected official, right?

Do loads of campaign dollars force people to vote for someone other than who they want to?

Are you seriously advocating that special interest groups should be able to use their nigh limitless pool of funds to override the political process and shape the candidacy as they see fit?

What part of the political process are they overriding?

...compare this to James Cameron making a shitty space movie. Conservatives are free to make all the propaganda films they wish, and they already do in fact make exactly that.

If a movie says "oil benefits society greatly", and then a politician says "I'm going to let people drill for oil", isn't that movie effectively, indirectly persuading people to vote for that guy?

I maintain that ideology is way more pervasive in the human mind than the names and identities of individual politicians they vote for.

Yes. Yes it does
Your double negative makes no sense. I'm assuming you're asking if that quote makes Gingrich sound racist.

Here's the point: you want to determine if someone is racist. Well hey, here's something that person said that is most certainly racist. Quotes are a perfectly legitimate way with which to figure out someone's beliefs.
And so, our case for proving Newt Gingrich to be racist will be based on things he's said, like the 'language of the ghetto' comment.

But hold on, there's also things Newt Gingrich has said that are very not racist. This conflicts with the case we made. So therefore, we have to look a little deeper to prove Newt's racism one way or the other; we cannot do it simply by taking quotes at their face value.

I know, this is simple stuff. I just wanted to make sure you were aware what my point was.

The answer is yes. First of all, his claims were that he wanted to get African-Americans onto paychecks instead of food-stamps, which is completely ignorant because the vast majority of said African-American welfare recipients already have jobs that don't pay enough to cover basic living expenses, hence the need for government assistance.

He wants:
Pay checks
He doesn't want:
Food stamps

But the fact that the vast majority have both, means that there's a problem with Newt Gingrich's supposed desires. Do you support all people having food stamps and jobs?

Second of all it completely ignores the extenuating circumstances that bar these citizens from more lucrative jobs and forming successful careers.

What are these circumstances?

It's also extremely condescending of him to believe that he's totally the right man for the job in order to improve the living conditions of people below the poverty line if they would only work harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

What have other people done to improve the living conditions of the impoverished? The Democrats specifically?

So what is the basic history of Palestinians? What is it about them that makes them real and legit?
If you're an Israeli supporter, the whole "Palestinians aren't real" position is an extremely hypocritical one to hold. Anti-Semites and rather extreme groups that oppose Israel like to deny the existence of historical things as well.

You know, like the holocaust.

That doesn't answer the question. Come on sir, we only live once here.

Second of all, you're attempting to make the quote appear non-discriminatory by saying "hey he thinks all relations are inappropriate!". So if that's the case, please show me a quote where he makes the claim that he would move to add restrictions to HETEROsexual relationships within the military. You won't, yet he's made it abundantly clear he wishes to act against homosexuals specifically. That's discrimination.

That is a completely legitimate point!

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-24 15:40:15 Reply

I fail to see how privately investing in something that supports a certain agenda is the same as paying a politician to support your agenda.

If I had 50 billion dollars sitting around, I could put a few billion into a film that supports my position. That way I get my message out and people can choose whether to agree or disagree with me. On the other hand, I could give a politician billions of dollars to fuel his campaign and in return he must argue in favor of my agenda and put it into law if he is elected. See the difference? In the first example I'm just illustrating my position and using my money to get the message out. In the other example, I'm paying a politician to make my personal agenda the law. Sounds a lot like bribery to me. In fact, that is the literal definition of the word bribery.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-24 18:42:35 Reply

At 3/24/12 03:00 PM, Davoo wrote: So if something is art, it can promote anything it wants to with unlimited funds?

To a point, yes. You can't make a movie that promotes a particular politician or political party though- I believe the FEC would have something to say about that. But doing an allegory for some particular issue is fine. Having unlimited funds isn't necessarily going to make people going to want to go see your art, however.

Not all of them. Nor are they all budget either. In fact, Hollywood wasn't as liberal in the 80's and 70's as it is now.

Common conservative tactic: claim any good action movie as being conservative. Frickin' Rambo isn't "conservative", nor is it "liberal". It's a psychological thriller portraying the struggle of a Vietnam veteran to reintegrate into society. The message, if anything, could be said to be "war is hell".

If no rich people ever made big donations to politicians, are those politicians beholden to no one, then?

They would be less beholden to the fabulously wealthy few, and more beholden to the people who actually vote for them; the people of the United States.

So you're saying when someone says something not racist, but had said racist (or language-ist) things in the past, they're lying?

If they're not lying, then they are deceiving themselves. Nobody likes to admit to having racist tendencies, so they make excuses to justify it to themselves.

Whether or not they exist wasn't really what Newt means when he's said 'they were invented'. From what I understand of his accusation, he claims the Palestinians were simply a collection people from other backgrounds merged together, and given a made-up history, so that they could claim to 'own' certain parts of the middle east.

That's what I understand from his accusation, but I really know almost nothing about this. Please tell me, if you know.

Do your own research. http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

So wait, did Don't Ask Don't Tell require people to stop being gay? Or simply to not talk about it?

"Simply to not talk about it"? Why should homosexual service members be forced to hide their sexuality at all cost or risk facing a dishonorable discharge, while heterosexual servicemembers do not have to hide their sexuality? Or do you suppose that EVERYONE should have to hide their sexual preference? Is that what Santorum is arguing for?

He was definitely about to say "black" people, but caught himself as he was saying it.
How can you prove that? Really now.

It seems rather obvious from watching the clip.

He was talking about people on welfare, and in his mind, that translates to black people.
How can you prove that?

From the clip where he was talking about welfare, and he let it slip that he doesn't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody elses money.

Black people, tagging along with the progressive movement, started to vote Democratic at or around when Woodrow Wilson was elected,
Why did they? Since the democrats were the ones who supported slavery, why did they decide to vote for them?

The Democrats of the 1910's were not the same Democrats of the 1870's and 80's. Their party had changed, and so had the Republican's. The Republicans had left their liberal and progressive roots and turned more towards big business conservatism, and they had never really catered to their African American supporters since the end of reconstruction anyway. Blacks were a part of the Republican electorate, but they weren't a major part anymore. Republicans relied more on middle and upper class white northern Protestants, while the Democrats relied on Irish Roman Catholics and lower class southern Protestants (Baptist, Methodist, etc.). The Democrats had also started to favor the Progressive reform movement, of which Blacks were a large part of. So, while the Republicans grew more conservative under Taft, the Democrats grew more progressive under Wilson.

That's exactly what I hear a lot of conservatives say about Democrats; that welfare is helpful to some, but can often be used to make people dependent on government.

"Do you want free money?" Asks the government. "Vote for me and you'll get it. Then vote for me again and you'll get more money."

Naturally, people then become dependent on this money, and therefore have to vote for the person supplying them their money. So in a way, it's like a lighter form of owning a person; they give you a vote and you give them money.

That, at least, is the accusation I hear all the time. What is your response to it?

My response is that it is a childish oversimplification and only a moron would subscribe to the notion that welfare is "free money". It is a safety net that helps society overall, because when people are poor and desperate, they usually resort to desperate measures. Remember, when FDR came into power, the nation was in the midst of the Great Depression, with poverty and unemployment running amok, and among those who were most greatly affected by this were black people.

What conservatives fail to see is that a hungry worker is not going to be a good worker. If someone who works for you is constantly worried about feeding their children, that person isn't going to be as worried about how YOUR company is doing. It breeds resentment between classes.

Welfare is an agreement among people that everyone chips in a little bit in taxes so that poor people, old people, and children don't have to live on the streets, because it helps the entire country, not just poor people.

and finally, Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights act of 1964
Weren't there a few other Civil Rights acts, two of which were signed by Eisenhower?

None which were as strong as the one in '64, and Goldwater doing his best to fight against it didn't exactly help the Republican cause.

as well as Barry Goldwater's racist southern strategy of 1964
What was his strategy? What was racist about it?

You really should at least make an attempt to do some of your own research. I'm not your history professor, and when you keep asking me to define terms that anyone with access to google could find information about in less than two minutes, it doesn't speak well of your intellectual curiosity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-24 19:05:01 Reply

At 3/24/12 03:00 PM, Davoo wrote: If no rich people ever made big donations to politicians, are those politicians beholden to no one, then?

How about the vote? The fundamental unit of democracy. Politicians should be motivated by votes, not dollars. I don't have billions of dollars to vote with. All I have is one vote. But my vote is insignificant compared to the voting power of $10,000,000,000. It's been shown that candidates with better funding for their campaigns get more votes. Even Santorum and Gingrich have argued this to explain Romney's success. Money gives them the ability to explain their positions to the public and criticize other candidates while responding to criticism effectively. They're essentially buying votes. That undermines democracy.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Famas
Famas
  • Member since: Nov. 26, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-26 03:48:03 Reply

At 3/24/12 03:04 PM, Davoo wrote:
Do loads of campaign dollars force people to vote for someone other than who they want to?

No, of course not. My phrasing wasn't made to assert that it is that simplistic. However, when you have the full forces of fortune 500 companies behind and election campaign they have the resources to make potential competition nearly inaudible by drowning them out with high volumes of campaign material. That's already the operating tactic as it is, but it would be amplified by several orders of magnitude if left unrestricted. They'd pretty much be ensuring that the only candidate you ever hear of, even if you consider your self up-to-date and well informed, is their own. Someone like Ron Paul has already been faced with a rather thorough media blackout and campaign smothering, and he would be virtually non-existent if it worked this way.

What part of the political process are they overriding?

Overriding was a poor choice of words, as I tried to explain a bit above. While you might not be able to straight up buy an election, per se, there's no arguing that money + proper connections in both media and commerce is the only way to gain any sort of leverage over opponents, and indeed to even be a candidate that is in the sphere of public knowledge to begin with. Herman Cain illustrated that point rather well, as the only reasons he garnered any sort of attention as a potential pick for the Republica Candidacy were all due to the connections he established as a speaker for the Americans For Prosperity who chose him because he made a nice talking head for them, being a moderately successful Chairman of a few companies. This is in comparison to his run for the Candidacy in the early 2000's which went virtually unnoticed because of a lack of any resources to plaster his face everywhere or hire a political coach to tell him "Hey, you should get in front of a mic and say some really outright ludicrous and batshit crazy things".

If a movie says "oil benefits society greatly", and then a politician says "I'm going to let people drill for oil", isn't that movie effectively, indirectly persuading people to vote for that guy?

I don't see the connection here, unless people choose to align themselves with the politician in direct response to the viewing of the pro fossil fuel film, and the politician relies on the film's popularity or outright plugs it as part of their platform .

I maintain that ideology is way more pervasive in the human mind than the names and identities of individual politicians they vote for.

Sure, I suppose I can agree to that, if I'm understanding you correctly. I mean, candidates have to conform to the values of the populace up to a point unless they wish to be deemed fringe. That doesn't mean they can't run manipulative campaigns designed to dupe a large mass of people into believing them to be conservative when they couldn't care less about economic conservatism, or that they're hardline enforcers of liberal social ideals when they immediately toss them to the side and say "I've got a lot on my plate I'll do it later" as soon as they are elected.

Here's the point: you want to determine if someone is racist. Well hey, here's something that person said that is most certainly racist. Quotes are a perfectly legitimate way with which to figure out someone's beliefs.
And so, our case for proving Newt Gingrich to be racist will be based on things he's said, like the 'language of the ghetto' comment.

I don't really care much for deciphering Gingrich's psyche and determining whether or not his thoughts and opinions are that of a racist. I think that's a whole different conversation (one which we certainly can have, but I feel isn't productive to the points either of us are attempting to make, because at the end of the day what he does is more important to us as citizens than what he's actually thinking) than confronting the things he has said on a public forum regarding racial dynamics and socioeconomic issues, which is what I wanted to do with my post. We can say "That is racially regressive and is counterproductive/I find this offensive" without bothering to say "Newt is a terrible monster who obviously hates black people". You don't have to pull a Kanye West to highlight the problems with the whole language of the ghetto comment.

But hold on, there's also things Newt Gingrich has said that are very not racist. This conflicts with the case we made. So therefore, we have to look a little deeper to prove Newt's racism one way or the other; we cannot do it simply by taking quotes at their face value.

Right, I wouldn't find it acceptable to flat out label him as a racist candidate with broken ideas in regards to racial politics based off a single comment. I didn't imply that, and I treat each comment and idea on their own case by case basis. Comments he has made after being called out on past, er...blunders, if you will, may indeed signify an attempt at a more constructive form of discourse from him, but that doesn't mean they are without their issues. And it's not as if things said by him that run contrary to the racist things he has said before (and I do feel it's important to point out that they were recurring instances over time, not him saying something stupid once or twice in the public eye) wash away his past comments and make people forget that this is a candidate who has expressed some considerably broken ideas.

I know, this is simple stuff. I just wanted to make sure you were aware what my point was.

You're free to elaborate all you wish.

He wants:
Pay checks
He doesn't want:
Food stamps

Yes, and that's all well and fair. But phrasing is definitely important when you're discussing an issue like this. Considering things like "Why are there so many African-Americans on food stamps?", "What do the unemployment figures of people on food stamps look like?" etc. If you imply that the issue can resolved simply by said people working a bit harder and collecting more paychecks, that's going to convey to them that you have absolutely no idea what issues they are facing that are keeping them below the poverty line.

But the fact that the vast majority have both, means that there's a problem with Newt Gingrich's supposed desires. Do you support all people having food stamps and jobs?

No, obviously I want to see them above the poverty line as well, I'm just sensitive to the idea that there's more to their living conditions that are causing them to be in the economic state they are then lack of initiative to secure better jobs, as somebody who lives below it myself.

What are these circumstances?

Large differences in the quality of available education, unlevel playing fields for being hired in the job market, and difficult access to health care combined with high propensity for things like diabetes and sickle-cell anemia, as well as a large and growing HIV problem.

What have other people done to improve the living conditions of the impoverished? The Democrats specifically?

I'm not sure why you'd demand specifically democratic names from me, as I haven't espoused the idea that democrats are any better myself. Nor do I need to show that other people can do the job better in order to share the idea that Newt isn't really qualified for it.

I've reached the character limit, so I'm going to have to make this a double post.


"R.I.P. Gunther Hermann - 2002-2052 He wanted orange. The world gave him lemon-lime"

BBS Signature
Famas
Famas
  • Member since: Nov. 26, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-26 03:50:54 Reply

At 3/24/12 03:04 PM, Davoo wrote:
That doesn't answer the question. Come on sir, we only live once here.

I mean do you want some complete bullet point format list of credentials here, or what? I would think that being an official recognized body by plenty of sovereign nations and having a specifically identifiable culture and readily available history for reading would be enough to establish a people as an independent group.

Would you say this about Ukraine or Chechnya, both of which the Russian Federation denied as being anything other than "Russia" (Ukraine they later gave up on giving a shit about after establishing it's own independence), even though the rest of the world recognized their agency? I doubt you would say that Chechnya isn't a place just because it has failed to sever all Russian dominance on its culture and borders, yet that's basically what you're doing with Palestine.

That is a completely legitimate point!

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not, so I'll just leave this as it is.


"R.I.P. Gunther Hermann - 2002-2052 He wanted orange. The world gave him lemon-lime"

BBS Signature
Angry-Hatter
Angry-Hatter
  • Member since: Mar. 17, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Artist
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-31 11:47:36 Reply

Looks like Dick is up to it again. First there was "bla" people, now we have Obama as an "anti-war, government nig-...".

Does Santorum suffer from racial tourettes or something, or is this just him being him?


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-31 15:51:50 Reply

At 3/31/12 11:47 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: racial tourettes

AKA: being a social conservative

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-03-31 20:42:52 Reply

At 3/31/12 11:47 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Looks like Dick is up to it again. First there was "bla" people, now we have Obama as an "anti-war, government nig-...".

Does Santorum suffer from racial tourettes or something, or is this just him being him?

if you listen closely he almost said fuck after that too


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
DragonPunch
DragonPunch
  • Member since: May. 12, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-04-01 09:14:07 Reply

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaJ0z3hx51s&feature=related

Oh lordie...Can we please deport this retarded buttface?


SCREW THE SYSTEM!!! Play video games instead.My Official Art Thread! COMMENT ON IT!

BBS Signature
Sectus
Sectus
  • Member since: Feb. 15, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 26
Artist
Response to Rick Santorum 2012-04-04 17:36:45 Reply

Can you really say that you want someone who says he is against gay marriage, porn, and internet freedom to be the leader of our country? I can honestly say that this guy becoming the president of our country would be one of the worst things that could happen to this place.

I would take Palin for president before I ever even thought of Santorum.