Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
First a disclaimer, this is a very liberal source, so I'm not willing to trust the apparent quotations of Santorum, but I also don't think they're beyond the pale. Also, while this was published a couple days ago, Santorum's actual response is from 2008. Its the same speech in which he claimed Obama had to right to call himself a Christian that has been making the rounds. I just thought that it might be fun to dig into it a little more.
Santorum wrote:
Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. The prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom.
All of the things are about sexual freedom, and they hate to be called on them. They try to somehow or other tie this to the Founding Father’s vision of liberty, which is bizarre. It’s ridiculous.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Should we have a thread on all the crazy things Santorum has said? Because it would a fun thread.
Meanwhile, I kind of like the idea of the Democratic Party as Woodstock, but not because of the entirely crazy reasons Santorum was gibbering about (seriously, has an American been as obsessed with sex since Anthony Comstock?), but because it was a shambolic gathering of people that's come almost by accident to stand for all these progressive ideas, but at it's core was a commercial enterprise run by people with no respect for its target audience, and fronted by a lot of big names who were basically there for the money.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote:Should we have a thread on all the crazy things Santorum has said? Because it would a fun thread.
He's one of the only politicians in history that I have no problems with smearing.
And by "smearing" I mean "actively campaigning against without being paid."
sebster wrote:
Meanwhile, I kind of like the idea of the Democratic Party as Woodstock, but not because of the entirely crazy reasons Santorum was gibbering about (seriously, has an American been as obsessed with sex since Anthony Comstock?), but because it was a shambolic gathering of people that's come almost by accident to stand for all these progressive ideas, but at it's core was a commercial enterprise run by people with no respect for its target audience, and fronted by a lot of big names who were basically there for the money.
I was directed to this link by a friend, who prefaced it by saying "Wait, when the hell was this orgy, and why in God's name wasn't I invited?"
That said, I do think his assessment of Obama's decision to affiliate himself with TUCC was grounded in political ambition, but I'm not sure that means he wasn't a Christian beforehand.
Also, fun fact, I've met Jeremiah Wright (same denomination as my dad), and he's a crazy bastard.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
Because the decline of American power is a moral decline, because people just don't believe in America anymore, because it's become a filthy, degenerate place, I mean have you seen what the gays do to each other? I mean, in the butt. So vote for Santorum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I was directed to this link by a friend, who prefaced it by saying "Wait, when the hell was this orgy, and why in God's name wasn't I invited?"
That said, I do think his assessment of Obama's decision to affiliate himself with TUCC was grounded in political ambition, but I'm not sure that means he wasn't a Christian beforehand.
Well yeah, no problem with that. You don't get to be president at, what 47 (48? maybe) without having immense political ambition. Especially if you haven't got the financial and political connections that come from being born into a moneyed family.
Also, fun fact, I've met Jeremiah Wright (same denomination as my dad), and he's a crazy bastard.
I'd be shocked if you said otherwise
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/22 08:37:58
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
That means we've got Jimi Hendrix, The Who, Creedence Clearwater, Grateful Dead, Sly and the Family Stone, Blood Sweat and Tears and several other goodies! WOO! PARTY!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I'll have to find a way to use "the Abortion Culture" in casual conversation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/22 09:16:54
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
RAGE
Be sure to use logic! Avoid fallacies whenever possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
dogma wrote:First a disclaimer, this is a very liberal source, so I'm not willing to trust the apparent quotations of Santorum, but I also don't think they're beyond the pale. Also, while this was published a couple days ago, Santorum's actual response is from 2008. Its the same speech in which he claimed Obama had to right to call himself a Christian that has been making the rounds. I just thought that it might be fun to dig into it a little more.
Santorum wrote:
Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. The prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom.
All of the things are about sexual freedom, and they hate to be called on them. They try to somehow or other tie this to the Founding Father’s vision of liberty, which is bizarre. It’s ridiculous.
Wait, its not?
All I have to say is:
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
Agreed on that, whats so wrong with exploring your sexuality? Im sorry, but if I have to be some prude in bed, and have the same ol missionary position sex, and take extra care not to enjoy it, then what the feth is the point? Im glad Im not that guys wife, thats all Im sayin
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
Agreed on that, whats so wrong with exploring your sexuality? Im sorry, but if I have to be some prude in bed, and have the same ol missionary position sex, and take extra care not to enjoy it, then what the feth is the point? Im glad Im not that guys wife, thats all Im sayin
Is it actually possible to have voluntary sex without enjoying it?!
If I didn't enjoy it how the hell could I actually father children?
These neo-nasty fundaMENTAList christian types are the people that give you guys such a bad name over here. It is a shame that they manage to get so far in your political system and get so much press over here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/02/22 12:52:57
More have died in the name of normality than ever for strangeness. Beware of normal people.
He who asks a question is a fool for 5 minutes; He who does not is a fool forever. (Confucius).
They get in the press, because its good press TBH. How many people would want to watch the news if it were boring? Now how many people would want to watch the news, if they were talking about a fruit cake that thinks sex is BAD! See, instant ratings lol.
Also you can father a kid and not enjoy it. I personally havnt, but it can happen
KingCracker wrote: Im glad Im not that guys wife, thats all Im sayin
In fairness, so is he.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
KingCracker wrote: Im glad Im not that guys wife, thats all Im sayin
Google Santorum's wife sometime and read about her back history before she met Rick.
I'm no fan of Rick, but I'm kinda glad that his wife hasn't been completely dragged through the mud over that stuff. Still, it really makes you wonder about that family, doesn't it? And considering I have it on some authority that Rick wasn't always so conservative, it almost makes me wonder if she's partially to blame for Rick's apparent insanity.
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
What's the principled difference between sexual freedom and any other kind, like commercial or religious freedom?
Disclaimer: I think Santorum is an awful, awful candidate. He's really part of the "religious left." Pro-government intervention, but for religious purposes.
sebster wrote:
...but because "Woodstock" was a shambolic gathering of people that's come almost by accident to stand for all these progressive ideas, but at it's core was a commercial enterprise run by people with no respect for its target audience, and fronted by a lot of big names who were basically there for the money.
Marry me!
Veriamp wrote:I have emerged from my lurking to say one thing. When Mat taught the Necrons to feel, he taught me to love.
Sonophos wrote:Is it actually possible to have voluntary sex without enjoying it?!
Yes, for both males and females.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Yes, but you don't feel religiously obligated to mate and produce children.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I still do not understand how a man would reach climax or even maintain tumesence without enjoying the act. Viagra only facilitates arousal it doesn't start it.
You can hate yourself all you want after the act but the act itself must by definition be enjoyable to some degree for the man.
If your the female partner is not enjoying the act then it is in my mind rape in minor degree because force, coersion or compensation is being used.
More have died in the name of normality than ever for strangeness. Beware of normal people.
He who asks a question is a fool for 5 minutes; He who does not is a fool forever. (Confucius).
So, is it official? Has Santorum actually come out as anti-freedom?
Sonophos wrote:
Melissia wrote:
Sonophos wrote:Is it actually possible to have voluntary sex without enjoying it?!
Yes, for both males and females.
Surely a cup of tea would be preferrable to such an activity. It's what I have done on those rare occasions when the mood has not been correct.
There's lots of things people can do voluntarily without enjoying it. The other day, my wife was watching some terrible romantic comedy. I voluntarily watched it with her, but I didn't enjoy the experience.
biccat wrote:
What's the principled difference between sexual freedom and any other kind, like commercial or religious freedom?
Depends on the principle you hold most strongly.
If material concerns are paramount, then its very easy to argue either that commercial freedom should be restricted, or that it shouldn't be. As always, freedom doesn't mean much.
biccat wrote:
He's really part of the "religious left." Pro-government intervention, but for religious purposes.
That's a really lame attempt at branding.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Wait this thread is still going? Once Janis Joplin has opined thats it. Perfection achieved.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
What's the principled difference between sexual freedom and any other kind, like commercial or religious freedom?
Disclaimer: I think Santorum is an awful, awful candidate. He's really part of the "religious left." Pro-government intervention, but for religious purposes.
Pretty strange that he's doing so well amongst strongly conservative voters while Republican moderates shy away from him, then.
Let's try a more rational and, you know, correct statement: Santorum represents exactly what the social right wants in a conservative.
Seaward wrote:Pretty strange that he's doing so well amongst strongly conservative voters while Republican moderates shy away from him, then.
Let's try a more rational and, you know, correct statement: Santorum represents exactly what the social right wants in a conservative.
That's not correct.
Santorum is gaining support because he's the current anti-Romney. Romney was able to harm Gingrich by negative ads and is now ramping up against Santorum.
As far as I'm concerned, Romney and Gingrich are the only two viable options. Either Ron Paul or Santorum would be disastrous for the Republican party.
That doesn't mean Santorum isn't a better option than Obama.
Seaward wrote:Pretty strange that he's doing so well amongst strongly conservative voters while Republican moderates shy away from him, then.
Let's try a more rational and, you know, correct statement: Santorum represents exactly what the social right wants in a conservative.
That's not correct.
Santorum is gaining support because he's the current anti-Romney. Romney was able to harm Gingrich by negative ads and is now ramping up against Santorum.
As far as I'm concerned, Romney and Gingrich are the only two viable options. Either Ron Paul or Santorum would be disastrous for the Republican party.
That doesn't mean Santorum isn't a better option than Obama.
So you're saying social conservatives are not, in fact, trying to get government involved in the individual citizen's bedroom? Because there's enough out there to refute that, from voting records to speeches made by the men - and it's usually men - themselves, to choke a small donkey.
What isn't? That Santorum isn't a right-wing candidate?
The only way you pull that off is via a no true scotsman which is, obviously, not a road you want to walk down.
biccat wrote:
Santorum is gaining support because he's the current anti-Romney. Romney was able to harm Gingrich by negative ads and is now ramping up against Santorum.
Yeah, but they're different. The negative adds against Gingrich were very much about revealing things Gingrich didn't want revealed, Santorum pretty much owns up to everything people will try to call him out on. Of course, the discrepancy in terms of funds favors Romney, but you can't write Santorum off as another Gingrich because they're very different.
biccat wrote:
Either Ron Paul or Santorum would be disastrous for the Republican party.
There's a solid argument that Paul is the best option for the GOP, given that they have an uphill battle, and his image will likely focus attention on economics over social matters.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Ouze wrote:What's the argument for why sexual freedom is bad, exactly?
What's the principled difference between sexual freedom and any other kind, like commercial or religious freedom?
Disclaimer: I think Santorum is an awful, awful candidate. He's really part of the "religious left." Pro-government intervention, but for religious purposes.
Pretty strange that he's doing so well amongst strongly conservative voters while Republican moderates shy away from him, then.
Let's try a more rational and, you know, correct statement: Santorum represents exactly what the social right wants in a conservative.
Strangely I agree with that statement....
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
More have died in the name of normality than ever for strangeness. Beware of normal people. 
Waaagh! Gorskar = 2050pts
Iron Warriors VII Company = 1850pts
Fjälnir Ironfist's Great Company = 1800pts
Guflag's Mercenary Ogres = 2000pts