What is Digg?69 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+50The same Rick Santorum who *lied* to the American public, saying we found WMDs in Iraq?
The same Rick Santorum who believes sodomy should be illegal?
The same Rick Santorum who equated homosexuality to incest, pedophilia and bestiality?
The same Rick Santorum who tried to impose teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in public schools, calling intelligent design a "legitimate scientific theory?"
This isn't a smear- it's the truth. - Tamriel, on 10/12/2007, -16/+35On behalf of all my politically enlightened friends in PA, and as a resident there for my entire life, I would like to start off with an ad hominem attack on you. But instead, I'm going to point out the fact that that's what it takes now to get people's attention. And if you don't think Republicans are the party of ad hominem attacks, then you don't pay attention to politics and never have.
What's so bad about saying, "My opponent is an *****. Here's why..." Santorum is a fervently religious man who believes religion and the state should not be separated. He is anti-abortion on all fronts. He screwed Penn Hills out of around $100,000 because of electronic schooling for his children. He always pushes for lowering worker's rights. The site is not one long ad hominem attack on Rick. Sure, there's lots of them because that's what politics seems to call for, but when you get down to it, there are links to actual content. But hey, I'm sure the submitter check them all out to make sure he wasn't just hyping his title... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+37They did? They really, really did?
Link?
And, preferably a link which *doesn't'* go to an article about the weapons we found buried in the ***** desert which WE gave Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War.
Mkthnxbi. - IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -12/+30Hahahahhaha 4Wheel,
Did you even read the PDF you linked to? That's some pretty good self-ownage!
Thanks for the laugh of the day. - timla, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26Here is a link to something that actually discusses the contents of the above pdf. Looks like what they were talking about were stale old leftovers from before the first gulf war, hardly the WMDs that were claimed on the eve of the second gulf war.
http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/4972 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+23At what point did I say it was okay to smear people? Oh yeah- never.
I said this isn't a smear job, probably because it isn't. The fact is that Santorum is so totally divorced from sanity that simply making the public aware of his own ideology looks like smearing him.
If you care to refute anything I said about him, go ahead and give it a try. - whiskeymb, on 10/12/2007, -17/+30Republicans:
The party of gutter politics,character assassination and moral bankruptcy - pintomp3, on 10/12/2007, -7/+20i don't agree with such tactics like name calling and such, but santorum is really bad for this country. to claim that we have found wmds and that creation science is valid really shows how out of touch he is with reality. and not wanting to maintain separation of church and state is just jack-hammering one of the pillars that makes this country great.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+28Still waiting on that link.
- timla, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19I do not know alot about Casey, but I do know about Santorium and no matter how bad Casey is, he the lesser of two evils
- dogsop, on 10/12/2007, -30/+41At least it is accurate.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+184wheel:
>Yes. I did read it. Yes, it was stale
4wheel, a "stale" WMD isn't a WMD at all. As a matter of fact, investigators in Iraq said that they had about the same potency and laundry bleach.
So your argument that they had "WMDs" is silly, since what they had was clearly not any sort of useful weapon since it was pre-1992 (ie. supplied by Reagan.)
In addition Bush already admitted that Iraq didn't have WMDs, he said "It turned out they didn't."
So your argument that they had WMDs has been refuted by the administration. - timla, on 10/12/2007, -9/+16No what it proves is that there was some stale ***** laying around (And a relatively small amount compared to what the administration claimed).
If they found facilities and infrastructure to ramp up production, that would be more in line with what we were told, or were expecting to find. This stuff looks more like it was forgotten, then hidden.
You want to argue that Saddam was bad bad guy who needed to be taken out because he tortured his people, and committed genocide. I may even help you with that argument. But the WMD's were just a tool used to whip the American public up into a frenzy.
The WMD issue is not an issue about Saddam, it is an issue of the current administration lying to the American people. Without it and 9/11 (Both of them) the administration does not get approval to send in hundreds of thousands of American troopes. It was a means to an end, a tool. - h3smith, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Santorum believes homosexuals are the biggest threat to the United States of America. Not terrorists. Not North Korea. Not a fascist government.
That alone should tell you something, that he is bat ***** insane. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Dan, a gay sex columnist, was quite offended when Mr Santorum equated gay sex with bestiality. Quite offended.
Interesting that you chose not to quote that part.
I think the definition of Santorum is hilarious. Couldn't have been more appropriate. - Djerrid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It looks like someone vandalized the frothy Santorum page on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_%28sexual_slang%29 - annoyedman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The problem with hard lefties like santorum.com's owner is that it is a little hard to take them seriously about anything at all. That kind of mental sludge simply precludes anything like a remotely intelligent conversation. Yes, I am a conservative person, and yes, I disagree with most arguments made by liberals, but at the end of the day, I have to live next door to all kinds of people with whom I might disagree politically, and there is simply no room in my day for giving attention to the deliberately offensive. Life is too short to dance with ugly women.
If this guy feels marginalized by things that Santorum is alleged to have said, then he has certainly contributed to his own marginalization by reacting to Santorum in such an infantile way. It is the equivalent of shouting "You POOPOO Head!!!", but with a little html and some bandwidth thrown in. - JonnyTrombone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8This, and more recently "ITMFA.com" (Impeach the mother ***** already), was created by sex-advice columnist Dan Savage. He got really pissed when Santorum likened homosexual marriage to people having sex with turtles. The definition found on the website was the winner of a reader contest to turn Santorum's name into sexual slang.
- drjborg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That is the part I don't get. People don't like Santorum for his anti-gay stance, so they turn his name into something that paints gay sex as truly revolting ? Seems self defeating to me.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Your type in quotations "while listening to Rush". I guess you were abducted.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Maybe you should read what he said instead of skimming it. I don't need to protest.
- kevinmoore, on 06/13/2009, -0/+2Guanotorum?
- dextrocardia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Geoff:
I dugg you up because I agree that people should not digg down arguments just because they disagree with them.
That said, I think you're being a little disingenuous about his comments. Santorum is pretty vocal in his opposition to gay marriage, and the difference between reductio ad absurdum and "slippery slope" in this case is slim indeed. It's not like he approves of non-hetero relationships in general and is just splitting hairs on this particular ruling. - geoffrobinson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Feel free to vote for or against Santorum. Agree or disagree with him. But the attack that he equated different acts drives me up a wall.
He used the reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation. You take someone else's logic, in this case the legal reasoning of Lawrence v. Texas, and take it to an absurd conclusion which is consistent with that reasoning. And guess what? Santorum was correct in that legal analysis.
A lot of the hatred of Santorum has been generated by his attack on the legal reasoning of Lawrence v. Texas. He's equating these two things! No. You have to use to non-equal things to use this form of argument.
I find it sad and telling that the reason so many people, including Dan Savage the author of this website, is that they are unable to recognize logical forms of argumentation.
It should make you pause and wonder if some of the other assessments about Santorum are accurate as well. For instance, he doesn't think concraception should be illegal. But he doesn't think laws against constraception are unconstitutional.
Such nuanced reasoning seems lost on most. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm dating a girl who is bisexual (for real, 2 3 year relationships with women). I once wondered out loud if homosexual relations are really sex. I was just thinking about what the word means and I'm not sure gay relations qualify as sex.
Main Entry: 1sex
Pronunciation: 'seks
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin sexus
1 : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
2 : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females
3 a : sexually motivated phenomena or behavior b : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
4 : GENITALIA
From that I'd say it doesn't. Bear in mind I'm a liberal guy and think homosexual people ought to have all the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else. I do think words matter and I'm not sure sex is the right one. I mean, really, who the **** cares but cmon, it is mutual masturbation, not sex. - AstroPHX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Interesting response... I never said you listened to Rush.
P.S. Since you apparently can control Google to get at everything the US knows, can you tell me if there's really a UFO at Groom Lake? - ate50eggs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6For those of you who don't know, the association Santorum with "The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" was made popular by gay columnist Dan Savage in his column Savage Love. I would imagine that if someone likened my lifestyle to incest, pedophilia and bestiality, I might be a little pissed off too.
- LeSquide, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Santorum.com has been up for a while, as far as I know. It was a response to his anti-homosexual agenda from quite a while back, when certain members of the community decided to return the favor, so to speak, by naming certain things after him.
While the front page isn't particularly mature, the rest of the site does document the man's positions on the issues, most of which are incredibly loathsome. While there are people going "Look at dem libruls and thar ataks on a grate man," you'll notice that Arlen Spector doesn't receive the same treatment, largely because he doesn't attempt to dehumanize a good half of the human race and constantly stamp down on the middle to lower classes.
I might vote for Spector, depending on who was running against him.
If the opposition was a rabid raccoon, I'd probably vote for it over Santorum. - Gundabad, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11Why is everyone digging down 4Wheel? You don't have to agree with him, nor am I saying you should, but he is just stating a decenty well-spoken opinion in the topic of the article. He's not a troll or a spammer.
- wpc105, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You sure he was using reductio ad absurdum? I would say he was trying to use a slippery slope argument to convince listeners that permitting homosexuality would then lead to questioning the illegality of beastiality, statuatory rape, and other sexual crimes. I would say that, in his mind, his connections between the two are anything but absurd.
- lonelycanuck, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4doesnt Santorum and his family live in Virginia? How the hell did he get elected in PA?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You have no idea what I read, what news I watch, or what I listen to on the radio. Just an example, I can't remember the last time I heard a Rush show. You don't know what I do for a living, you don't know what I have access to, you don't know anything about me, and your assumptions are quite amusing. Yes, mine stinks just like everyone elses, but your "facts" stink. The information to disprove what you've stated about the rest of our government not knowing what the president knew is public access. Look it up dumb-ass.
- m0nk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I think he moved them down to VA after he was elected, citing that he liked them "close" to his office in DC. Either way, he shouldn't be able to run in PA and he is, so the only choice is to vote him out....
- Poorlytoldjoke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I like Sodomy. I like it a lot as a matter of fact. So you know, he's down 15 points with 7 days left. Bye Rick. I would love to say it was nice knowing you, but it wasn't. The most I can say is thank you for being one of the guys who make Dennis Kucinich seem positively sane. This will give you more time to cuddle with miscarried fetus. But don't let this stop you from running for president in 08. Please don't. the world needs reminded of you and your values as much as possible.
- nonfamous, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3OK, I'll correct you. You're wrong. Dan Savage coined and popularized it in his Savage Love syndicated column: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=14422 . Maybe his column is syndicated in your City Paper?
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@ geoffrobinso...
I understand that. You can dress it up however you want, but the comment still betrayed a bigoted point of view on his part.
(BTW, I dugg your comment up. Just because I disagree with you doesn't justify burying your comment as long as you express it intelligently. I don't understand why people on Digg bury things they disagree with.) - geoffrobinson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, I'm sure.
Plus, I wonder why pointing out people don't understand that a logical argument is being employed is resulting in negative diggs. I personally don't care. But I find it amusing. - AstroPHX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"People that don't weigh all the facts, that just believe the little parts that support what they WANT to believe, are dumb-asses."
You 4wheel, by your own definition, are a dumb-ass. Here are some sweeping assumptions about you: you read 1 newspaper a day, you tend to watch one TV station for your news, and you listen to 1 radio station for entertainment.
How do I know that?
Because there's not enough time in the day to read the WSJ, the NYTimes, the International Herald Tribune and (enter your local rag here), while listening to Rush, NPR and Radio Free America. You can't watch Al-Jazeera, ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, Frontline and Fox News. And, unless your previous posts are misleading me, you don't have any line on top secret material that gives you "all the facts."
We - as thoughtful world citizens - do our best to work our 40+ hours a week, pay the bills, pray to our God, and responsibly parent while still keeping up with the local, national and world goings-on. I do not have all of the facts. There are a few people in the world that /might/ have "all of the facts," and most certainly you are not in that circle of people.
We as greedy little sons-of-bitches agree with what we find least disagreeable, whether it be that Bush is right or wrong, that Islam is or is not the One True Religion, and whether or not life begins at conception.
It is /my/ horribly self-centered belief that most things that have happened politically since Bush took office in 2000 have had incredibly negative affects on not only the world, but me and my descendants. I believe that Americans are worse off in 2006 than they were in 2000. I believe that the next U.S. President will get little accomplished because of the rigorous infighting that has become the norm in the last 14 years. I believe that having a US$8.5T (T as in TRILLION) debt is a bad thing, and running a government greater in the red is not good.
I finally believe that, more than anytime in our recent history, people should shut the ***** up, listen to each other, and stop acting like 3 year olds. 90% of the crap that is happening in this world is caused by close minded ***** that think their ***** doesn't stink, and "their way" is the one and only correct way. That's why the US and Russia wanted to evaporate each other for 20 years, why NAMBLA thinks pedophilia is A-OK, why the KKK thinks the Great White Race is the only race, why Germany wanted to evacuate the world of the Jews, why every Democrat is a Liberal, and why fundamentalist [enter religion here] think they can kill with impunity.
Stop being a dumb-ass, 4wheel. All of our ***** stinks, and nobody here has "all of the facts," least of all you. - timla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Me thinks the gentleman doth protest too much
He did not say you listened to Rush, he listed Rush in a long list of information outlets some left, some right, some center. Stating there were too many information outlets to keep completely informed.
You seam to be skimming rather then reading, a problem I find with zealots on both sides. - geoffrobinson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Yes, he does oppose gay marriage.
But, in regards to the comments of Santorum about Lawrence v. Kansas, he wasn't equating different sex acts. That assertion is plain wrong.
One wouldn't employ an reductio ad absurdum argument if you were equating two things. - mitchellk, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7And what do you call the hundreds of mustard gas and sarin shells? They are WMDs and they were found in Iraq.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34wheel:
>Yes. I started out by calling him a dumb-ass. I stand by that statement. The same goes for the "President Bush Lied" crowd. If he lied, so did the entire U.S. government.
Well actually that's false. The Democrats never said that they knew where the WMDs are, because they didn't. The Republicans did say this but it was, sadly, a lie.
As it turned out since then at the very best declassified memos reveal that the intelligence was mixed. At worst, it basically said that there's just no evidence for an extensive WMD program to be found.
Colin Powell even later went on to state that his testimony to the UN was one of the most shameful parts of his life. - hardcoreUFO, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Rick Santorum = idiot
Thats an ad hominem attack too, but its absolutely true. - geoffrobinson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Again, he was using the reductio ad absurdum form of argumentation. Not equating two acts. He was using a logical form of argument.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3For all of you claiming this is an ad hominem attack, think again. It's just using the term santorum for a new meaning. That's implied, but not really an ad hominem attack. It's just a word.
I think part of the subtle point the site is trying to make is that words can be abused in ways that affect and hurt people--you know, like an elected official equating someone's sexual preference with bestiality and incest.
So remember, Santorum supporters and Republicans. It's just a word. It's not hurting anyone. Right? - dustedbunny, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Your organization's Internet use policy restricts access to this web page at this time.
Reason:
The Websense category "Sex" is filtered.
....Cant even see it at work. Damn. :( - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Yes. I started out by calling him a dumb-ass. I stand by that statement. The same goes for the "President Bush Lied" crowd. If he lied, so did the entire U.S. government. Democrats and all. People that don't weigh all the facts, that just believe the little parts that support what they WANT to believe, are dumb-asses.
- ahsile, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4This is really old news guys. The site has been around forever.
- inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4This isn't really a smear site per se, but rather a reaction to Santorum's bigoted comments about gays. Eye for an eye, and all that. I'm not crazy about ad hominem attacks from either side of the political spectrum, but this isn't just out-of-the-blue. Any "leader" who compares someone's sexual preference with pedophilia or incest is pretty much putting a target on his back for this kind of response.
- johnnylarue, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Eeeewwwwww. Quit smearing santorum. It's a bit stinky and difficult to clean up unless you get at it right away.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is