« Liberal Blogs »

11/05/2004

Even More 2006 Senate Races

Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania. Senator Santorum has been given a "100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record," and yet "Voted NO on allowing importation of Rx drugs from Canada", "Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage", "Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks", "Voted YES on limiting product liability punitive damage awards" and "Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits"

So I guess as long as you are a family that can afford to pay the exorbitant cost of prescription drugs while living on $5.25/hour, don't mind having your kids playing at the homes of friends who's parents may be gun owners and those guns don't have to have trigger locks and, if a big company does something stupid that injures you or yours, you have no right to sue them, then Mr. Santorum is your guy.

In an interview with the AP that appeared in
USA Today in April of 2003 Senator Santorum has clearly lost his mind,
"AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they'd pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?
SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.
AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?
SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.
AP: What's the alternative?
SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

Wow! I don't even know where to start on this one. The Catholic Church is too Liberal? Really? They must not have received that memo yet. He keeps talking about "consensual" while talking about these kids being molested. What in the hell is he talking about? He thinks these young boys being molested by an authority figure in their church is "a basic homosexual relationship?" I really don't even know what to say.

Later in the interview Santorum, of course compares homosexuality to beastiality, "Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality"

During debate on the Same-Sex-Marriage ban amendment Santorum told us how he was going to defend the "homeland". Was he going to hunt down terrorists? Was he going to put pressure on Iran and North Korea to stop their nuclear activity? Was he going to lobby our former allies to help us? Was he going to fund more police officers and fire fighters? Did he have a plan to secure our borders, ports and nuclear facilities? No, he was just going to stop gay people from getting married.

"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance. Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

I can't understand why Santorum didn't get the Director of Homeland Security Job. It would have made that whole color-coding thing a lot more fun.

Purple - Be on the lookout for gays, they could be anywhere and they (gasp) may want to get married.

Mauve - A lot of gay-like activity detected. This usually means they are getting ready to demand equal rights just like "normal" people, so keep the kids inside.

Pink - Lock your doors and huddle in the basement. They are having a gay pride parade downtown and if the kids see it they may "chose" to be gay. It's choice you know. Everybody knows it. Don't tell me it's not a choice. Who's there? Is somebody behind me?



0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google