Senator Rick Santorum (R - of course) maintains that liberalism causes rape

In an interview with the Associated Press, the Senator suggested that the government has the right to prohibit gay and lesbian individuals from expressing love for each other physically. "The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that," said the Senator, "I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we're seeing it in our society."
Click to expand...

I say we find out where he lives and have one big giant, shirtless (but not naked, so it's still legal), gay kissing contest outside his house.
 
AP) - WASHINGTON-Sen. Rick Santorum assured abuse victims he would look into why the Justice Department has yet to respond to their request for an investigation of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy.

The meeting Thursday between Santorum, a Republican from Pennsylvania, and three members of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests was scheduled after some of its members expressed outrage over a column he wrote in 2002.

"When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected," Santorum wrote in the column. "While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm."

Now ricky is trying to save face.

http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/51/07-22-2005/361500095fbe8c9b.html
 
I applaud his actions to investigate the priest abuse cases, but to keep attacking liberals as the cause just shows himself for the political hack that he is.
 
Does anyone have any information or rationale for why Boston is the "center" of the priest abuse scandal? Were more children molested there per capita? per priest? Something statistical?

I'm wondering if Santorum isn't just making shit up: although Boston has been at the forefront of the media stories, is it truly the "center" of the scandal?

Santorum seems to be making false accusations of causation (liberalism caused molestation by priests) based on a correlation that may or may not even be true (not to mention that correlations can be spuriously related - that their relation is due to another factor or merely coincidental - or, although a correlation exists, there is no causal evidence to prove the old "If A, then B" statements.

I tell my students that, given a large enough sample size, anyone could find a statistical correlation between propensity for murder and favorite breakfast cereal; that does not mean, however, that Honeycombs caused a murder to occur.

Santorum's on The Daily Show (!) tonight; I'm prepared to hear the righties bitch and moan about a nitwit with no intellectual or political integrity get his ass handed to him by a comedian, thus reaffirming just how liberal the media is - they've taken our comedy!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Santorum's on The Daily Show (!) tonight; I'm prepared to hear the righties bitch and moan about a nitwit with no intellectual or political integrity get his ass handed to him by a comedian, thus reaffirming just how liberal the media is - they've taken our comedy![/QUOTE]
Oh shit! That's for the head's-up on the Daily Show. Can't wait to see Santorum make an ass out of himself. Jon is usually very respectful to his guests (as he should be). Now if only Stewart could go up against Santorum on a show like Crossfire, hmmm...
 
"Do you believe in sex before marriage?"

"No, people get upset if the wedding starts late."

Man, let this guy keep talking. At least Frist knew when to shut his fucking lips when it came to idiotic assertions or diagnoses based upon video footage of a patient. Santorum wants to sabotage his own campaign, and I think he's all the better for it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"Do you believe in sex before marriage?"

"No, people get upset if the wedding starts late."

Man, let this guy keep talking. At least Frist knew when to shut his fucking lips when it came to idiotic assertions or diagnoses based upon video footage of a patient. Santorum wants to sabotage his own campaign, and I think he's all the better for it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, he also stated that gay sex is never consensual.
 
I won't accept that as an answer; he may be a nut in my eyes, but he can't make claims like "gravity doesn't exist" without taking some flack for it, you know.

So, regarding the claim that no homosexual sex is consensual, that's a bold statement. Two people of the same sex encounter each other, and in a myriad of various social and verbal contexts propose and answer the questions "would you fuck me?" "I'd fuck you." before going off to the bedroom, restroom, parking lot, or church pew for more scandalous behavior. In short (too late), the claim that no homosexual activity is consensual is an absurd claim, and if he doesn't want to look like that much of a buffoon, he better have a damned good explanation for why he would say as much. Will I believe him? Of course not, I've encountered too much evidence to the contrary, and absolutely zero evidence to support his claim (then again, none of the gay people I know actively recruit members, unless you're enough of a goddamned idiot to count flirtation).

At any rate, I'd like to hear Santorum's defense on this matter, or that he was simply misquoted (and given the sheer dunderheadedness of the statement, I expect this to be the case).
 
I believe this is the exact quote: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) 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," Santorum said in the AP interview.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/santorum.gays/
 
He's not saying that consentual gay sex doesn't exist: he's saying that you (or anyone :) ) don't have a right to it. He's a nut, but he's not QUITE enough of a nut to claim that something doesn't exist when it clearly does.
 
Short article's up now:

White House ire as conservative senator keeps going on Soc. Security
RAW STORY

Senator hits White House on failure to sell Social Security plan

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), who has established his credentials as a conservative Republican from a moderate state, is beginning to wear on the White House's patience, according to a report Tuesday in Roll Call, RAW STORY can reveal.

Santorum has been a vitriolic critic of President Bush's now all-but-defeated plan to privatize Social Security. Now, it seems, White House allies are pushing back.

Figures, it's just Santorum not towing the Republican party line. I thought it might have had something to do with his idiotic comments lately. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top