Senator Rick Santorum backs slots $ for new arena

[positive_pens_fan]

i completely understand the medias issue with what senator santorum was doing; however, i cannot understand how a school board could allow the practice for four years and then decide it was wrong. they saved face by placing the blame on the senator. realistically, the the school board should have gotten the blame because they are in charge of making decisions on behalf of the citizens. you act like the senator walked in there and threatened the school board members, if they gave him acceptance into the program because he was a senator it is their problem not the senators.

[Ginger]

All of a sudden I feel better about living in Nevada.

Okay, okay, so Vegas has made this a safe haven for unregistered sex offenders but hey! Ya just wear a chastity belt & tote a gun when you go out!

[HomerPenguin]

the problem is nobody knows what bob casey stands for because he doesnt take a stand on anything. furthermore, the only issues that he does take a stand on are ones that senator santorum forces upon him. bob casey is a man running on a name and anti-santorum sentiments. he is a suit without known beliefs. i am interested, for those of you who will be voting for bob casey....tell me why without referring to senator santorum.

No.

I have two reasons for refusing:

1. I tend not to respond to commands.
2. Voting against a candidate you find particularly odious is as valid as voting in favor of a candidate you find particularly estimable. I flatly reject the basis of your point.

[positive_pens_fan]

voting against president bush surely didnt work. which is what a good amount of people who voted for kerry did.

[HomerPenguin]

voting against president bush surely didnt work. which is what a good amount of people who voted for kerry did.

It didn't work as a campaign strategy, although that's not totally clear since the Kerry campaign didn't use "vote against Bush" as their campaign theme; the fact is that they never really had much of a theme. I need only direct your attention to the love-fest 2004 Democratic Convention, where if you heard the word "Bush" it was probably being used in a context other than describing the incumbent president.

My point is that at the individual level, which is the level at which you're dealing when you ask individual voters to tell you why they're going to vote a particular way, it is as valid to vote against a candidate as it is to vote for one. At the level of the individual voter, voting against the president worked just fine; they walked into their polling place and voted against him.

[positive_pens_fan]

well i just think it is a shame when a politician gets into office by running on anti current admin policies rather than standing for something. dont get me wrong, bob casey is doing the plitically smart thing by not saying much because i think he can only lose ground by doing so.

[Draftnik]

I have a high level of respect for you Draftnik, However, in the early/mid 90's I lived in Hopewell and spent Mon thru Fri on the road (Mostly in the DC area). My family was back in Hopewell.

You're not implying that in my effort to provide for my family I wasn't a good husband or parent are you?

Rick campaigned on an issue (Walgrens absenteeism) agressively (I know, I was there with Rick knocking on HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of doors with this message) yet within years, he was doing the same thing!

You'd think someone who would make an issue a keystone of their campaign would at least have the dignity and ethics not to do the same thing. In fact, can you believe him now or trust him not to change positions on any of his current beliefs when he did that?

I think you and I both dropped out of politics for similar reasons though. Its a dirty shady business that I just couldn't be associated with.

By the way... what do you call a busload of politicians at the bottom of the ocean?

Answer: A good start!

I'm not calling you a poor husband/father. I've had jobs where I travelled a few days per week myself. The nature of a Congressional job is a life in Washington. That is a fact, not my opinion. The whole issue and how Santorum was able to get away using it against Walgren is quite silly IMO; it has absolutely nothing to do with being an effective legislator. Walgen and his camp were incredibly weak IMO for ever letting it become the central issue of the campaign.

Of course there is a double standard with Santorum now doing the exact same thing, but he has been the victim of disingenuous political attacks such as the Wofford SS lying scare tactics to 1994 SR Citizens, so I see it as all is fair in love, war, and politics. I think younger people that have such passionate hatred for Santorum don't really understand the inside nature of politics and how most political positions are self serving depending on the temperature of the moment. If Santorum were truly outraged about Walgren's absenteeism maybe he has had a change of heart now that he has been faced with the reality of being away from his wife and kids for long periods of time. The nature of a full time job in Washington and the opportunity to have your family live with you is much different than a typical commuting job in the private sector, so I don't think this is comparable to your travelling work.

As you opined earlier this thread has disintegrated into a political thread which the Admin doesn't want. I think we all can agree that any Federal/State/Local political support for a new arena is a good thing, but if people have a problem with Santorum trying to help they are obviously entitled to their opinion.

[netwolf]

voting against president bush surely didnt work. which is what a good amount of people who voted for kerry did.

Voting against Kerry worked though. It's long been my opinion that many people don't vote FOR anyone; they vote AGAINST someone.

[SportsFan]

Santorum is jsut trying to get votes, he is soo far nehind, like 15% to Casey.

Anyone remember the whole charter school incident with him? Or the comments he made about Katrina?

The guy is a total moron.

[DayWalker]

Santorum is jsut trying to get votes, he is soo far nehind, like 15% to Casey.

Anyone remember the whole charter school incident with him? Or the comments he made about Katrina?

The guy is a total moron.

I dunno...

I don't know many "total morons" who worked for Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.

[HomerPenguin]

Santorum is jsut trying to get votes, he is soo far nehind, like 15% to Casey.

Anyone remember the whole charter school incident with him? Or the comments he made about Katrina?

The guy is a total moron.

I dunno...

I don't know many "total morons" who worked for Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.

LOL, you're right, he's a genius. I bet he's working on a cure for cancer in his spare time. It certainly takes a lot of brains to bash queers and bully DC lobbying interests into hiring your cronies, which are the only two things he's done in 12 years as far as I can see. Oh, right, he "fixed" Medicare. "Fixed" it so well that it's going to go bust in 2020. That's some record he can run on.

[DayWalker]

Santorum is jsut trying to get votes, he is soo far nehind, like 15% to Casey.

Anyone remember the whole charter school incident with him? Or the comments he made about Katrina?

The guy is a total moron.

I dunno...

I don't know many "total morons" who worked for Kirkpatrick & Lockhart.

LOL, you're right, he's a genius. I bet he's working on a cure for cancer in his spare time. It certainly takes a lot of brains to bash queers and bully DC lobbying interests into hiring your cronies, which are the only two things he's done in 12 years as far as I can see. Oh, right, he "fixed" Medicare. "Fixed" it so well that it's going to go bust in 2020. That's some record he can run on.

That Medicare continues to sport a multi-trillion dollar liability is hardly the fault of Rick Santorum...

Secondly, bashing queers? Care to cite the statements that "bash queers?" Because he doesn't believe that the government should be forced to recognize gay marriage? John Kerry doesn't either. Neither does Howard Dean. Your point?

Third, his "K Street" lobbying tactics are surely disagreeable, but hardly unique to him or the GOP...

[rasbatch]

Just to relate another moronic thing Santorum said, remember I'm paraphrasing. In his book he blames feminism for telling women the only meaningful choice is to get a career and forgo child rearing and caring for a household. This is utter nonsense as I see it 60's and 70's feminism said housewives are just as important as those women who chose careers, maybe moreso if you think raising the next generation is important. Slick rick here wants to rewrite history and blame the decline of the nuclear family on feminism. When a women makes the same money as I do then maybe feminism has run it's course, but let's not role back the clock because the "great santorini" want's em barefoot and pregnant instead of showin him how it's done. Take back, America indeed back to the 1800's

[Tomas]

Secondly, bashing queers? Care to cite the statements that "bash queers?" Because he doesn't believe that the government should be forced to recognize gay marriage?

Well, I have no problem with Santority. I have a problem with Santoral acts.

[rasbatch]

Secondly, bashing queers? Care to cite the statements that "bash queers?" Because he doesn't believe that the government should be forced to recognize gay marriage?

Well, I have no problem with Santority. I have a problem with Santoral acts.

are you attempting to spread Santorum? cause that's a problem!

[Zscout]

"The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong."

--Arguing that poor, unwed mothers don't really need college educations. It Takes a Family, Pg. 138, July 2005.


"It’s amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools."

--On his belief that public schools are weird. It Takes a Family, Pg. 386, July 2005.

"In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it."

--Defending Catholic Priests who molested children.

"It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. 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."

--Blaming liberals for Catholic Priests molesting children.

[HitSomeBody]

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/inquir ... ter_county

[DrBoni]

The guy couldn't be more of a *****bag unless he had a neon sign around his neck, flav-style, that flashed "*****" then "bag" then "*****bag!" alternately.

Secondly, bashing queers? Care to cite the statements that "bash queers?" Because he doesn't believe that the government should be forced to recognize gay marriage? John Kerry doesn't either. Neither does Howard Dean. Your point?

The difference is that neither Dean nor Kerry has equated homosexuals with beastiality. Santorum has. He

Perhaps you should read this...
http://www.felbers.net/fa/2005/07/13/gu ... -santorum/
and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy

Really, the guy said that homosexual relations are killing the "American Family", and said that sodomy is equal to man-on-dog. How is that not bashing queers?

I have several friends that are gay, and my girlfriend has mostly gay friends, and it's absolutely ridiculous that this ******* would want to tell them what they can and can't do within the privacy of their own homes because of what he believes is a "family". Don't even get me started on his women's rights/feminism BS including abortion. Like some ***** in a suit that is walking around with a work of fiction, yes, the bible is fiction, in his hand should be able to tell a woman what she should do for a career and with her own body? That is BS. The guy is a PSYCHO.

See...

This is exactly the problem. Those are his beliefs, and a lot of people happen to agree with him. You may disagree with him but you say he's psycho because he doesn't see the world the way you do? Well, that just goes back to my original point.

I don't persecute gays. However, I don't see how it's crazy to compare it to bestiality or polygamy. Simply based on the fact that gay marriage is not even close to the insitution that is and has always been recognized by this country. Yes, we've changed a lot of things since then (i.e. slavery) but do you see us ratifying our customs to allow either of those two practices? Well, some people feel the same way about homosexuality and I'm not about to tell them that they're wrong.

[DrBoni]

My point is that he is TRYING to force his views on others, and THAT is the most egregeous of his wrongdoings.

I wouldn't have any problem with this, but your post makes a different point. One that points the finger at anyone who may agree with the same principles and bedevils them. I just ask for more civility than that. That's compromises are met. Not with the contant tearing and bickering we see between any two ideas that disagree. It's our human nature playing with us to test our reactions. How far can we push it until anarchy breaks loose?

Read it. Believe it. Learn it. And respect it.

Everybody's trying to live the world to the best of what they believe. I have my morals, you have yours, and Santorum has his. That's what I'm leaving it at. You may consider some of these views to be ignorant and I may consider some of your views to be less than morally correct. That's how life works.

The way we should all approach it though is to live by our beliefs and strive for the best for our kids, but let it die when it comes to our one on one dealings. That's why I stop short of calling an individual with a dissenting opinion a psycho or an idiot. We just disagree. I'm not going to try to change how you feel about that, because I know how close your beliefs are to you.


I'll dismiss the personal attacks, as this is only a message board. But I will say that I have many, many friends who are gay, lesbian or transgender. I'm a friggin' music major, heh. But we get along fine. I do not persecute them because of their beliefs and they don't judge me even with mine. That's the difference between someone who doesn't agree with something and one who perscutes.

Santorum has definitely said/done things that cross that line, don't get me wrong. But that was not the message I took from your post.

If you want the last word on this, then please, go ahead. I've said all I need to say.

[DayWalker]

The guy couldn't be more of a *****bag unless he had a neon sign around his neck, flav-style, that flashed "*****" then "bag" then "*****bag!" alternately.

Secondly, bashing queers? Care to cite the statements that "bash queers?" Because he doesn't believe that the government should be forced to recognize gay marriage? John Kerry doesn't either. Neither does Howard Dean. Your point?

The difference is that neither Dean nor Kerry has equated homosexuals with beastiality. Santorum has. He

Perhaps you should read this...
http://www.felbers.net/fa/2005/07/13/gu ... -santorum/
and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_controversy

Really, the guy said that homosexual relations are killing the "American Family", and said that sodomy is equal to man-on-dog. How is that not bashing queers?

I have several friends that are gay, and my girlfriend has mostly gay friends, and it's absolutely ridiculous that this ******* would want to tell them what they can and can't do within the privacy of their own homes because of what he believes is a "family". Don't even get me started on his women's rights/feminism BS including abortion. Like some ***** in a suit that is walking around with a work of fiction, yes, the bible is fiction, in his hand should be able to tell a woman what she should do for a career and with her own body? That is BS. The guy is a PSYCHO.

With respect to his comments about bestiality, they were in response to the holding in Lawrence v. Kansas, a holding that found a constitutional right to homosexual conduct (Where that is in the Constituition, I have absolutely no idea. Surely the ratifiers did not believe it was in there; nor did the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment in 1868.) But, if the holding is to be read as written by SCUSA, what is the legally distinguishing argument that finds incest, polygamous relationships, and bestiality NOT similar liberty interests, like homosexual conduct? That was Santorum's point. Perhaps you should read the decision and consider the LEGAL, liberty interest-argument he is making, rather than assuming his is impugning gays and lesbians in his reasoning. Again, I saw no queer-bashing in making a LEGAL argument that Peter Singer might also be inclined to make (and he is no queer-basher.) I honestly do NOT believe that Santorum believes a homosexual relationship to be the same as a relationship between a man and a dog. Only a willfully foolish individual would honestly believe that about the man...

Secondly, I couldn't care less what homosexuals do behind closed doors; nor do I think homosexual conduct should be criminalized. But as Justice Thomas concluded, just because something SHOULD NOT be criminalized (from a moral/normative perspective) does not mean that the state CANNOT criminalize such activity. Like Thomas (and I imagine Santorum), I would not vote for any law that criminalizes homosexuality. However, that does NOT mean that there is a constitutional right to homosexual conduct as per the Constitution (That the Court found one somewhere-presumably in the back of the document-does not make its existence anymore real.) Again, this was the point: If there is a right to do what one wishes behind closed doors-essentially as per the holding of Lawrence-what LEGALLY distinguishing argument can be made against beastiality, polygamous relationships, and incest?

Thirdly, with respect to your gay and lesbians friends, I would say to them that they are free to do as they want, so long as they do not demand public/government affirmation of their relationships (i.e. government recognition of their relationships.) One cannot have it both ways: One cannot demand to be left alone (a view I certainly embrace with respect to government, save for abortion) and at the same time demand government recognition of a gay or lesbian relationship (via gay marriage or civil unions.) I am willing to bet that Santorum and a majority of the public embraces the former, but surely not the latter.

Fourth, perhaps Santorum views the value of preserving human life as a higher virtue than the autonomy of a woman's body. Perhaps you would disagree (and I imagine you do.) That hardly makes him a psycho...

And surely you will take the time here to prove that the Bible is fiction. That would be entertaining to behold...

[DayWalker]

"The notion that college education is a cost-effective way to help poor, low-skill, unmarried mothers with high school diplomas or GEDs move up the economic ladder is just wrong."

--Arguing that poor, unwed mothers don't really need college educations. It Takes a Family, Pg. 138, July 2005.


"It’s amazing that so many kids turn out to be fairly normal, considering the weird socialization they get in public schools."

--On his belief that public schools are weird. It Takes a Family, Pg. 386, July 2005.

"In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it."

--Defending Catholic Priests who molested children.

"It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. 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."

--Blaming liberals for Catholic Priests molesting children.

On the first point, I think there is indeed a compelling argument that low-income MOTHERS are not necessarily well-served to go to college (and take on considerable debt in the process) in a job market that has increasing devalued the value of a bachelor degree. Santorum has argued that there may be BETTER approaches for unwed, single mothers-marriage, trade schools, etc. That is not the same as saying that unwed, single mothers don't need a college education; rather, there are perhaps better options to pursue to help the mother advance (though college MAY be an option down the road.) Essentializing a college education to the detriment of all other options is foolish, and that was, and has been, his point.

On the second point, I too have profound problems with the public-school system. Those that look at mere efficiency would as well...

Third, Santorum was in no way defending child molesters; it is laughable to think he was. Your postscript was a non sequitur...

[DayWalker]

See...

This is exactly the problem. Those are his beliefs, and a lot of people happen to agree with him. You may disagree with him but you say he's psycho because he doesn't see the world the way you do? Well, that just goes back to my original point.

I don't persecute gays. However, I don't see how it's crazy to compare it to bestiality or polygamy. Simply based on the fact that gay marriage is not even close to the insitution that is and has always been recognized by this country. Yes, we've changed a lot of things since then (i.e. slavery) but do you see us ratifying our customs to allow either of those two practices? Well, some people feel the same way about homosexuality and I'm not about to tell them that they're wrong.

Uh, but you're missing my point. My point is that he is TRYING to force his views on others, and THAT is the most egregeous of his wrongdoings. I could give two craps if he or you or anyone on this board agrees with me, the point is that I'm not sitting here telling someone what they should or can believe. I'm simply pointing out that voting for someone based solely on the fact that he thinks a new arena would be a good idea is completely ridiculous as well. A monkey could sign out that he feels the arena would be a good idea. I'm pointing out the ridiculous beliefs of a man that is AN ELECTED FRIGGIN' OFFICIAL. HE IS IN CHARGE OF SOME THINGS. Do you not understand that?

As for your "I don't see how it's that ridiculous comparing it to beastiality or polygamy" is possibly the most ignorant, sexist, and moronic statement that I've read next to Santorum's. How can you actually sit there and type that you think 2 men having an intimate relationship together is comparable to someone taking a dog or a goat or whatever? Are you sick in the head? It's a friggin' animal man. AN ANIMAL. And polygamy is, well, actually something most every other creature on this planet does...so that's a ridiculous comparison too. I will sit here and tell someone else what to believe on this occasion...BEASTIALITY AND HOMOSEXUALITY ARE NOT EVEN COMPARABLE. Read it. Believe it. Learn it. And respect it.

I can't friggin' believe you wrote that...

Oh, and by the way, brainiac, by saying that you don't see how it's ridiculous, you just persecuted the gays. So there goes that "I don't persecute gays" statement of yours, eh?

Every law FORCES values on somebody-how are Santorum's perspectives unique?

How is homosexuality different from polygamy? And anyway, who are you to force your values on others and say that they cannot marry more than one individual? Who are you to force YOUR values on others who wish to have intercourse with a dog? Why, you are behaving precisely like Santorum in your moral impositions.

Pot, meet kettle.

Oh, and way to persecute polygamists and those that wish to have intercourse with other species.

By the way, slavery was abolished via a constitutional amendment (the 13th), not via judicial fiat (as was the case in the Massachusetts court ruling of recent vintage.) Therein lies a critical difference...

[HomerPenguin]

And surely you will take the time here to prove that the Bible is fiction. That would be entertaining to behold...

Let's see. If the Bible were literal fact, then:

The sky would be a solid "firmament" separating the waters in the sky from the waters on Earth
Photosynthetic plants would have been created before the sun
Astrology is condemned, despite the fact that God placed the stars in the sky to act as signs and that the use of astrology is implied in the story of the wise men and the heralding of the birth of Jesus
Adam died at the ripe old age of 930, although God said he would die the same day that he ate the forbidden apple
A guy once built a boat large enough to hold two or seven or fourteen (the Bible passages permit all three interpretations) of every animal on the planet, and during the 40 or 150 days (the Bible says both) of the great global flood of which there is no archeological evidence, none of these animals got hungry and died or ate any of the other animals
A staff becomes a snake if you throw it on the ground
Hit a rock and you'll get water
Jesus is a direct descendent of King David through his father Joseph, who isn't really his father because God is
The world ended during the lifetimes of Jesus' followers
Mud made with spit can cure blindness
It's possible to bring people back from the dead

Can I stop yet?

We don't even PRETEND that the Bible is literal fact anymore, frankly. We don't kill anybody for working on Sunday. We swear oaths on the Bible, although Jesus forbids that practice in Matthew. Christians eat shellfish and pigs. We make clothes of multiple kinds of fabrics, and I'm pretty sure that farmers plant crops of different kinds side by side; both of these are forbidden in Leviticus. Yes, these passages have symbolic meanings about divided loyalties and whatnot, but fundies like the Dobsonites who back Rick aren't typically interested in nuance and symbolism. For them the text is literal fact, and even a lapsed Catholic like me remembers that you can't pick and choose what you want to believe.

Here's my favorite, based on God's efforts to kill everybody who "pisseth against a/the wall" in 1 Sam.25:22, 25:34; 1 Kg.14:10, 16:11, 21:21; 2 Kg.9:8:

"A person could piss against a tree, he could piss on his mother, he could piss on his own breeches, and get off, but he must not piss against the wall -- that would be going quite too far. The origin of the divine prejudice against this humble crime is not stated; but we know that the prejudice was very strong -- so strong that nothing but a wholesale massacre of the people inhabiting the region where the wall was defiled could satisfy the Deity." -- Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth

Then again, I suppose its the same type of intellect that treats the Bible as literal fact and also thinks that Rick Santorum put homosexuality and beastiality side-by-side in a public statement but DIDN'T intend to belittle homosexuals. Yeah, he was just making a banal legal point.

[Draftnik]

Do everyone a favor and stay home on election day if all you're going to vote on is ONE issue - an arena for a sports team, without looking at the ramifications that voting for an individual based on that lone issue will bear.

What gives you the right to tell ANYBODY who should vote and why they should vote? The great thing about our democracy is people do not have to meet minimum net worth (land ownership per the 16th century), intelligence, etc requirements to cast their vote. One person, one vote based on whatever criteria are important to the voter. Why should I or any other voter for that matter care about your criteria?

Exclude people from voting because they don't care about issues important to you. Definitely one of the dumber things ever posted at LGP.com.