Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Rick Santorum

profile picture
Dr.Gnar
Posts: 896 - Karma: 197
For the record I'm Canadian and don't intend to start a shitstorm, but this Rick Santorum character seems like the biggest fucking goof ever, and it seems embarrassing that he his actually going for president. From what I read about him and his quotes, see, and hear, he's an absolutely moron idiot who has no business in the presidential race whatsoever. He is pompous, silly, and apparently dumb as fuck. To all you Americans, please don't vote for him. Character, in my opinion, is critical if you're gonna serve 4 years in office, and he is a comical joke.
Mar 13 2012 10:54PM
0 0
profile picture
Aidan-G
Posts: 9415 - Karma: 10,861
Santorum represents 90% of what's wrong with this country
Mar 13 2012 10:57PM
0 0
profile picture
freestyler540
Posts: 13082 - Karma: 18,718
at polls suggests even if either candidate wins, Obama still has majority support. In both cases, both guys are idiots. I swear, its like the retarded teaching perroquets to count. Both want social reform where it is not needed; both blame everyone else for their own fuck ups. They are so cought uo with winning that all moral values are thrown out the window.

Now dont get me stated on Canadian politics...that is some messed up shit. The firestorm of Canadian politics has begun...
Mar 13 2012 11:03PM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Gnar
Posts: 896 - Karma: 197
Ours is automatically more chill just because our population is pathetic against the USA.
Mar 13 2012 11:29PM
0 0
profile picture
conradmcmurray
Posts: 1 - Karma: 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js3BYcHmBhE


Mar 14 2012 9:09AM
0 0
profile picture
caliskigirl
Posts: 393 - Karma: 67
Yep. He pretty much is a single human representation of all the things I (and many others) don't like about the US. He spawns/fuels idiocracy
Mar 14 2012 9:27AM
0 0
profile picture
DUKES
Posts: 5150 - Karma: 691
you all watch the colbert report and the daily show too much to develop an actual political mindset of your own. the only thing you are actually spewing is hatred without any points to back up how his campaign is terrible or how he is a bad candidate. not by how he looks
Mar 14 2012 10:26AM
0 0
profile picture
ATLskier
Posts: 8203 - Karma: 406
so you're canadian and watched CNN for 5 minutes, and in those 5 minutes developed an opinion on Santorum, and finally you are telling Americans not to vote for him.


This is exactly what the media did to Palin in 08. He's not stupid. He's not the smartest candidate either.

If he represents what is wrong with this country, then I guess conservatism is wrong, and that the constitution and the reasons this country were founded were wrong too.

Obama and the left are what is wrong with this country.
Mar 14 2012 11:11AM
0 0
profile picture
Heart
Posts: 6156 - Karma: 3,462
His views on social issues are terrible. He seems to believe that we still live in the 1950's, and he's fighting battles already dealt with years ago.
Mar 14 2012 11:11AM
0 0
profile picture
ATLskier
Posts: 8203 - Karma: 406
go ahead and find the words separation of church and state in the constitution...



He's not my choice for of a candidate either. I hate to say it, but I like Romney more. He's not proposing to do a bunch of religious shit with government. He had a lot more conservative values than Romney did, although his economic policies are not good.

It wont matter. Romney will be the nominee. Unfortunately, it wont happen for Newt.
Mar 14 2012 11:25AM
0 0
profile picture
DUKES
Posts: 5150 - Karma: 691
but staying "old school" means staying true to the constitution. Obama is developing laws that interfere with our constitutional rights of citizens by limiting religion, freedom of speech, our rights to protect ourselves, etc. Santorum may seem that he is stuck in the 50s but it is better than the current liars and cheats that are in our White House. Are you happy with 4 to 5 dollar gas. i'm not fucking happy i have to work for a living and support my farm which requires fuel to operate machinery and to feed livestock. Are you happy with increased taxes. No our current government wants to tax the middle class and the rih but the middle class and the rich are the ones that have businesses which need money to operate. Without small businesses the only things that are left unions. with unions the government limits how much you make and puts so many restrictions on the products and services. The 1950s focus was on the American Dream and if santorum is stuck there that is fine with me
Mar 14 2012 11:25AM
0 0
profile picture
k-rob
Posts: 14217 - Karma: 2,891
i came into this thread just to say "fuck this guy" about Rick Santorum but then i saw this fucking post and decided to kill myself instead because i don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Mar 14 2012 11:32AM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
Santorum is one of the many reasons that Obama is going to have a second term.
Mar 14 2012 11:33AM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Turtle
Posts: 3690 - Karma: 96
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
-the first amendment
Mar 14 2012 11:37AM
0 0
profile picture
Sno.
Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,152

I like me a mimbo billionaire and this candidate delivers.

inb4 talk about abortions/birth control/transvaginal ultrasounds which will most likely be introduced to this thread by me.

Mar 14 2012 11:41AM
0 0
profile picture
Amadeus.
Posts: 3050 - Karma: 382
god i hate to say stuff like this but wtf. DO YOU KNOW WHY THE 50's WERE SO PROSPEROUS?!!! BECAUSE OF KEYNESIAN FUCKING ECONOMICS. The 1950's to 1980s had the most government regulation this country has ever seen, thats why the middle class was so strong. EISENHOWER TAXED THE RICH AT 90 FUCKING PERCENT!

I have some tips/points for you.

1. Read the constitution.

2. Learn about how a government gets out of a recession (eg. great depression).

3. Obama is still using George Bush's tax plan.

4. Learn how Gas prices are effected and realize it has noting to do with Obama.

5. Obama is trying to help small business, and republicans are refusing to cooperate.

6. Obama doesn't just make laws, thats not how our government works. (back to reading the constitution)

7. Socially, the 1950's were horrendous for everyone other than white people.

Mar 14 2012 11:48AM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Turtle
Posts: 3690 - Karma: 96
loloololllolol

inb4 Woozy
Mar 14 2012 11:49AM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
either thats a word I've never heard before, or its the most sophisticated spelling of parakeet I've ever seen.
Mar 14 2012 11:55AM
0 0
profile picture
freestyler540
Posts: 13082 - Karma: 18,718
I came across this on memebase:
Click for larger image
Mar 14 2012 12:08PM
0 0
profile picture
Aidan-G
Posts: 9415 - Karma: 10,861
Actually it was because of the economic boom created by increased production during WWII. It lasted for quite some time
Mar 14 2012 12:08PM
0 0
profile picture
uosdwiSrjewoH
Posts: 4220 - Karma: 122
talking to americans about their politics is like talking to women about pms.

YOU DON'T LIVE HERE, YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY HAVE ANY USEFUL OPINIONS SO WHY DON'T YOU KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT,
Mar 14 2012 12:19PM
0 0
profile picture
Huck_Norris
Posts: 11487 - Karma: 18,627

Are you fucking high??? 

Dude.  This country's original aim- in case you skipped the first few weeks of US history- was to ESCAPE the government's insistence on enforcing religious law.  This has somehow been overlooked by just about every far-right wingnut that just wants THEIR OWN PERSONAL beliefs voted in as law.  You can't vote based on your religion and use "upholding the constitution" as a reason, it's just so ass-backwards it almost defies conventional wisdom to have that much hipocracy in a single statement. 

Honest to Godallahyawehjesusjahmohommed, every time I hear somebody say that shit I want to e-roundhouse them in the cyberthroat.  It's just so incredibly stupid of an argument to stand behind. 

Santorum is the epitome of someone who seeks to destroy the constitution and create a religious state that agrees with his own personal religious views, not the other way around, man!  Get up on your history, not your faux news ya fuckin retard.   

Mar 14 2012 12:39PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31053 - Karma: 29,231
this is amazing
Mar 14 2012 12:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Benji.
Posts: 1146 - Karma: 88
http://blog.spreadingsantorum.com/
Mar 14 2012 12:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Benji.
Posts: 1146 - Karma: 88
FUCK

Mar 14 2012 12:45PM
0 0
profile picture
.boz
Posts: 456 - Karma: 192
Where are you woozy....
Mar 14 2012 12:50PM
0 0
profile picture
Amadeus.
Posts: 3050 - Karma: 382
That definitely had effect but then again, that was government spending and regulation still.
Mar 14 2012 1:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Huck_Norris
Posts: 11487 - Karma: 18,627

How is it that you fucking retards even allow yourselves to cling to this argument???  I seriously don't get it.  

The country was founded on the idea of FREEDOM to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) you want to, not be subject to laws enacted as an extension of someone's religious beliefs.  Yes, this includes the far right's attempts to remove the rights of homosexuals based on it's sinfulness, and their insistence that a woman's reproductive system should be government mandated in accordance with christian principles.   

What you're suggesting is closer to Sharia law enforced by *GASP!* Islamic nations than our own legal system.  Is that what you want?  Religious law, like the middle east?  Take your fucking heads out of your asses for three seconds and examine what the fuck you're saying. 

Mar 14 2012 1:07PM
0 0
profile picture
wasatch_rat
Posts: 1772 - Karma: 2,951
your gonna get eaten alive by woozy if he comes in this thread.

and while i appreciate the idealism i'm a bit skeptical of keynesian liberal economics, because it requires an enormous amount of revenue that we were only able to generate as the undeniable hegemon, and part of the reason we changed it is because we stopped being able to generate enough cash when the rest of the world started to compete with us again. that, johnson's great society, huge military spending, and rising oil prices because of the arab embargo of 1973 were seriously threatening us. neo-liberal economics aimed to get more cash into the private sector and maintain a low deficit to GNP ratio, among other things, and was heavily influenced by the libertarianism of the Chicago school of economics. the government hasn't always done this successfully, but we are at a bit of a conundrum between the harsh race to the bottom of global neo-liberalism or the enormously expensive keynesian method.

globalization is changing economics, and many would say weakening the power of the state and strengthening that of NGOs (especially MNCs) and IGOs like the WTO, World Bank, and the IMF. what this means for america and how we should handle it is a much more complicated conundrum than i pretend to know how to navigate.

but yes santorum is a fucking clown
Mar 14 2012 1:17PM
0 0
profile picture
DUKES
Posts: 5150 - Karma: 691
listen i know times have changed and peopl dont give a fuck what you stick up your ass or your pussy. but listen what i meant by old school is that people based their beliefs on the american dream. our current president is tearing down our schools, our churches, and our small business. He is burning our constitution, burning our bibles, and torching our nations flag. (FIRE). i didnt mean going back to the ways of war or segregation.
Mar 14 2012 1:19PM
0 0
profile picture
wasatch_rat
Posts: 1772 - Karma: 2,951
Click for larger image
Mar 14 2012 1:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Huck_Norris
Posts: 11487 - Karma: 18,627

What the...  I don't even... 

What does Rush's dick taste like, anyways? 

Mar 14 2012 1:39PM
0 0
profile picture
Chuzles
Posts: 89 - Karma: 21
Mar 16 2012 7:55PM
0 0
profile picture
PagesHouse
Posts: 6024 - Karma: 104
I had similar reactionary thoughts to his post.
Mar 16 2012 8:01PM
0 0
profile picture
Petey.
Posts: 5736 - Karma: 4,885
He wants to ban my hardcore pr0nography!!1!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornography-222833811.html

Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States.
"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."
The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."
Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.
"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."
Santorum is not the first presidential candidate to take up the obscenity issue. In July, Michele Bachmann signed a pledge vowing her support of a constitutional amendment that, among other things, called for a ban on all pornography. (It also effectively called for a ban on same-sex marriage.)
The Atlantic wonders if Santorum's wide-scale crackdown on porn could actually work.
The Daily Caller found someone who thinks it could. "If the government wanted to aggressively move against Internet pornography, it could do so," UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told the site.
Wonkette's Rebecca Schoenkopf pointed out it's just another example of Santorum positioning himself as the extremely conservative choice for president.
"It seems that Rick Santorum has found time in his busy schedule of condemning 'radical' women for working outside the home and using birth control, and nagging English-speaking Puerto Ricans to speak English, and now is turning his hot, penetrating gaze to manfolk-bizness," she wrote.
Mar 16 2012 8:04PM
0 0
profile picture
JamesR
Posts: 3396 - Karma: -12
Wait, people still take rhetoric at face value and believe that the end result of one candidate winning will be different than that of any other candidate taking office?
Mar 16 2012 8:05PM
0 0
profile picture
PhaedeD
Posts: 11498 - Karma: 327
I agree with you for once. thats nice.
Mar 16 2012 8:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Edew19
Posts: 365 - Karma: 13
He is.  I'm frankly shocked that people in this thread which is mostly comprised of young and well educated people are actually sticking up for him.  I was under the impression that everyone voting for him was old or had billy-bob somewhere in their name.  Anti-birth control, anti-abortion (even in rape cases), anti-pornagraphy, doesn't believe in seperation of church and state, doesn't believe in global warming? really?  In most cases I can put aside personal views but I'm convinced this guy is mildly retarded.


Mar 16 2012 8:27PM
0 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
the straw that broke the camels back.


this man must be taken down.
Mar 16 2012 9:00PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
I'm no Santourm fan but this is exactly why half the crap liberals want as it applies to religion is not constitutional viable. This phrase means exactly what it says that the state will not support or infringe on any religion. This means the government cannot have a state religion, create a religion or interfere with people's practicing of it. That's why you can't force others to cover contraception or abortions when they morally apose it. But the first amendment does not mean that a politician cannot vote based on his religion or be out spokenly religious I fact is would argue if the people elect a staunchly religious candidate based on religious values it's that candidates obligation as a "representative" to vote religiously. He just can make one religion the states official one or try to ban others
Mar 16 2012 9:07PM
0 0
profile picture
easiestEC
Posts: 2471 - Karma: 489
ron paul for president
Mar 16 2012 9:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Dr.Gnar
Posts: 896 - Karma: 197
I feel honored that I started a shitstorm with this thread :)
Mar 16 2012 9:08PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
*edit. Can't. Make one an official religion
Mar 16 2012 9:08PM
0 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
the insurance companies are the ones covering it...
Mar 16 2012 9:35PM
0 0
profile picture
.squirrely.
Posts: 7563 - Karma: 7,546
hahahaha
Mar 16 2012 9:40PM
0 0
profile picture
manutdsaol
Posts: 906 - Karma: 56
How would the right wing achieve this? Enlighten me.
Mar 16 2012 9:41PM
0 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
because they will go over to Iran and take their oil. obviously. silly liberal.
Mar 16 2012 9:44PM
0 0
profile picture
sherwood4099
Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22
Insurance companies offer different types of coverage and employers pay for the type of health insurance currently being debated. It is usually a benefit and I don't believe the government has the right to require employer to buy coverage that covers things they morally apose. No ones saying insurance companies shouldn't be aloud to cover contraception. Just that no one should be required to provide it as a benefit. FYI I am conservative but not religious and I am pro choice. But this is about government infringement
Mar 16 2012 9:44PM
0 0
profile picture
987321654hgfd
Posts: 5133 - Karma: 5,447
Trying to get rid of hardcore porn. Terrible idea.
Mar 16 2012 9:47PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31053 - Karma: 29,231
DUKES, kill yourself if you actually come close to believing some of that shit you just spewed.
Mar 16 2012 9:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Edew19
Posts: 365 - Karma: 13
Not true.

First, no one is forcing companies to cover abortions.  Second, the law mandating that companies must offer employees insurance plans that cover birth control is %100 secular.  If I'm not mistaken, this would fall under the 'Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith' ruling.  I took a constitutional law class like 5 years ago and this is one of the few cases I remember.

That's besides the fact that almost everyone apposing this law are raging hypocrites since.
Mar 16 2012 9:55PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)