Poor Rick Santorum

[Scooter]

20 years from now, when he will have faded into the obscurity his "contribution" to public life deserves, his name will be known only as an unfortunate byproduct of anal sex:

Google shut down a request from arch-conservative presidential candidate Rick Santorum after he asked the Internet search engine to help him with his "name problem," i.e. when you search "Santorum" on Google, a description of an unfortunate sexual side effect appears.

Columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage named the mix of lubricant and fecal matter, caused by anal sex, "Santorum." It quickly caught on, with bloggers linking mentions of the candidate's name to the alternate definition, and is now it's the first description appearing on Google whenever someone searches for "Santorum." The antigay Santorum has long complained about the issue and told Politico that he recently brought it to Google's attention.

“I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they’d get rid of it,” Santorum toldPolitico. “If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country.”

But Google said it's not their responsibility to fix Santorum's problem; he needs to go to each individual webmaster that has used "Santorum" to describe the sexual substance and ask them to remove it. Google says it merely culls those descriptions.

A spokesperson for the company told Politico it does not "remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines."

[Gob]

he's right you know!

[Long Run]

Poor Rep. Santorum does not understand that the American way to deal with this would be to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[Scooter]

He would have a lot of cheek after accusing people of engaging in behaviour that was akin to bestiality.

[Sue U]

Where did Rick Santorum get the ridiculous notion that anything related to him has "an impact on the country?"

[Sue U]

he's right you know!

That video is so much more awesome if you don't read the subtitles!

ETA:

BTW, Losey Losington is the losingest loser ever in the history of losing, being an incumbent Senator defeated by a spread of nearly 18 points (59%-41%). A frothy mix, indeed!

[quaddriver]

Columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage named the mix of lubricant and fecal matter, caused by anal sex, "Santorum

Way to be a contributing member of society...

[Grim Reaper]

Way to be a contributing member of society...

As opposed to Mr. Santorum who stood by quietly while some of his fellow Republicans booed a Soldier just because he was openly gay. And then lied about not hearing the boos.

And Mr. Santorum also believes that sex shouldn't be an issue for the Army, which of course means that he thinks DADT should be reinstated. Because punishing people for their sexual orientation is how the Army should go about not having issues with sex. He also believes that the repealing of DADT is somehow giving special treatment for homosexual Soldiers. Because being treated exactly the same as every other Solder now is somehow special treatment.

[Scooter]

I'm sure he would claim that it is some sort of attack on the national security to point out that his position defies common sense.

[Scooter]

As opposed to Mr. Santorum who stood by quietly while some of his fellow Republicans booed a Soldier just because he was openly gay

To his credit, he later denounced the booing, unlike Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann and Cain who were all asked about the incident afterwards and responded with a "no comment" or not at all.

Nice to see all the Republican frontrunners condoning disrespect towards soldiers in uniform. It will make a great campaign ad for the Dems later on.

[Grim Reaper]

He has some vague understanding that booing Soldiers isn't good for his campaign, but he still wants those same Soldiers to have to go back to hiding their sexuality and fearing for their jobs.

[Scooter]

He has some vague understanding that booing Soldiers isn't good for his campaign

Yeah, but given that he isn't going to be the nominee, who cares? The fact that whoever will be the nominee showed him/herself in favour of booing soldiers is another matter, however.

[quaddriver]

Way to be a contributing member of society...

As opposed to Mr. Santorum who stood by quietly while some of his fellow Republicans booed a Soldier just because he was openly gay. And then lied about not hearing the boos.

And Mr. Santorum also believes that sex shouldn't be an issue for the Army, which of course means that he thinks DADT should be reinstated. Because punishing people for their sexual orientation is how the Army should go about not having issues with sex. He also believes that the repealing of DADT is somehow giving special treatment for homosexual Soldiers. Because being treated exactly the same as every other Solder now is somehow special treatment.

Well lettuce suspend reality for a few moments and give Mr Savage a pass on what he thinks he read, that CLEARLY was not stated (in fact, the way Mr Santorum stated it, it is nearly impossible to misquote him to get the point he was accused of making: ergo, Mr Savage simply lied and no one called him on it. (quelle surprise!) But to further devote your time and energy to produce THIS? And we are to be impressed with the guy?

Hey Im all for lowering the bar, but digging an underground trench just goes to far.


Ps: I have managed to go 47 years without voting for Santorum AND not being purile about it. And Im an idiot right?

[Grim Reaper]

I noticed you didn't actually reply to anything I wrote. You just wanted to beat up on Mr. Savage some more.

[Scooter]

Are there straight men (as opposed to "straight" (wink wink) men) who have actually read anything written by Dan Savage?

Wouldn't that be akin to a Pat Buchanan-type Republican reading Mao's Little Red Book?

[Scooter]

Apparently a call to come up with a similar new definition for his first name came up with the suggestion: rick (v) - to remove santorum orally e.g. He was so grateful for the lay that he ricked his partner.

[quaddriver]

I noticed you didn't actually reply to anything I wrote. You just wanted to beat up on Mr. Savage some more.

the topic (the one you responded to) is whether or not Mr Savage is a useful person. I believe I used the word 'contributing'.

If you want to debate Rick Santorum, then by all means start a 'Rick Santorum is a lousy senator and we should remove him from office' thread

Oh wait, we (the electorate of PA) already DID remove him. And we did so without being childish jagoffs.

there are a couple of sub-points here:

Santorum did not say what he was accused of saying. In fact he said the exact opposite (where is Andrew when you need him to chastise people on the use of our language) People who would want 'legitimate' next to their name would point this out. this factoid alone, makes Savage a douchebag.

Second point: it matters not what Santorum may or maynot think of gays in the military (in fact lets see some actual quotes, not interpretative rephrasings) Gays in the military is not what sparked his inital comments. So that part of your post was a non-sequitor strawman. Of COURSE I did not respond to it.

third point and completely glossed over: people who want legitimate next to their name (Savage) resort to behaviour like this to win an argument? Of course we have the age old maxim: "all behaviour is excusable if the exhibitor shares your ideology" but we are once again regressing to the Garafolo/franken/goldberg method of debating: you win the debate if you get in a better dig.

Seriously? This shit was dropped by most at age 14. I can understand it happening on a semi-anonymous BBS, but on the national stage?

In this instance, Savage and his supporters are not legitimate. Not to be taken seriously or given any consideration.

Note to scooter: not reading or agreeing with Dan Savage is not the same as knowing who he is and willfully ignoring him. He makes it a point to attack and alienate those who do not agree with him and support his viewpoints. Where is the honor in that? He has no desire for any debate, honest or not. He is, and remains an asshole. He acts like a semi drunk frat boy and gets his fame from being a jagoff. We have enuf Tom and Seth Greens. You go ahead and be proud of him.

[Grim Reaper]

Second point: it matters not what Santorum may or maynot think of gays in the military (in fact lets see some actual quotes, not interpretative rephrasings) Gays in the military is not what sparked his inital comments. So that part of your post was a non-sequitor strawman. Of COURSE I did not respond to it.

If you don't know what Mr. Santorum actually said, then you can not call my post a strawman. Of course you didn't respond to it, you didn't want to do even a tiny bit of research. It was far easier to just call it a strawman and toddle along to the next point you wanted to make.

And it's cute how you keep calling other people "childish jagoffs" while acting like a giant sized baby yourself.

But hey, let's let Mr. Santorum speak for himself:



Remember, giving gay Soldiers the same rights as straight Soldiers is giving them "special privileges". Apparently gays are only equal to straights if they have to hide who they are.

[Sue U]

What Rick Santorum actually said in his infamous "man on dog" interview is right here, from McPaper.

The interview was taped shortly after the US Supreme Court argument -- but before the decision -- in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated "sodomy" laws as an unconstitutional state invasion of a liberty interest. Santorum starts by blaming the Catholic Church's child sex scandal on "moral relativism" (because, apparently, that's now church doctrine?) and then continues with the erroneous premise that the "right to privacy lifestyle" (???) mandates that "if ... you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," and that "Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family." Santorum then generously notes that homosexuality, while antithetical to his (again, erroneous) notions of traditional marriage, is distinguishable (barely!) from "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be," but then immediately asserts that accepting the "right to privacy lifestyle" essentially means that such acts cannot be prohibited: "And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions."

It is beyond me how buttsexing or oralsexing your partner is somehow "antithetical to a healthy, stable traditional family." There are many wives and more than a few husbands who have a different opinion, probably! It is also beyond me how any kind of sexing between two consenting adults also requires a right to incest, bestiality, sex with children and state recognition of plural marriage (although having multiple wives is quite in keeping with Bilbical tradition).

So all this is a long way of saying, "Rick Santorum is an idiot."

[Scooter]

He just needs someone to rick his santorum