who suddenly seems pretty cool to me.

Rick Santorum may be many things to many people, but cool is not one of them.

But there is no way a guy like Dan Savage would have engaged in an honest debate; he’s a trash-talking slimebucket.

L.N. Smithee on May 30, 2011 at 9:06 PM

I don’t disagree.

Santorum dished out the language and his political career got hit. You toss out a word like lie, but are unable to show where I’ve done so.

dedalus on May 30, 2011 at 8:03 PM

What would you call repeating something that cannot be demonstrated to be true?

Yet, rather than support his case persuasively Santorum got derailed by needless incendiary language. With most human discourse rhetoric matters and can bury a valid underlying point. It happens between husbands and wives, bosses and employees and it happens more with politicians than in most fields.

Marriage should be left to the state legislative process, but individual privacy ought not be solely in the hands of politicians. Santorum can make a case that Roe was wrongly decided without dismissing Griswold. The presence of an additional life (with rights) makes the cases very different. Palin is one GOP candidate who disagrees with Roe while asserting an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution.

IHMO, Roe was the ultimate in judicial activism, actual legislation from the Supreme Court bench from whole cloth. It is not incumbent upon dissenters to cite Griswold to agree that Roe is outrageous. But because Roe granted instant extra-Constitutional rights to over half the population throughout the entire nation, it’s dicey to talk about correcting it. As the adage goes, possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Santorum could have made his point better, but even if he had a reading of the Constitution where there is no right to privacy likely will not work within the context of a national political campaign.

dedalus on May 30, 2011 at 3:50 PM

What you apparently want is for every Republican to wrap every sentence up in a hermetically sealed container so tight, it can’t possibly be chopped up, re-assembled, and misinterpreted by a journalist whose life’s mission is to convince the news-consuming public that Republicans hate them. That’s not going to happen.

I agree that Santorum will not be elected President because he is too honest about his point of view on privacy. But there is no way a guy like Dan Savage would have engaged in an honest debate; he’s a trash-talking slimebucket. Just last week, in response to a Canadian MP saying homosexuality was a choice, Savage invited the pol to choose to perform fellatio on him. No amount of careful, clinical, non- “incendiary” language will stop people like him.

On top of that, Savage is a liar. I will prove that when I finally finish my blog post.

Needlessly incendiary language. I’m guessing you repeating a lie is supposed to either convince us or convince you that the language was incendiary. The gay community really is uber-sensitive if that language is hurtful.

You guys dish out what I would consider rude, incediary, hateful, mean-spirited, destructive and uncivil.

hawkdriver on May 30, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Santorum dished out the language and his political career got hit. You toss out a word like lie, but are unable to show where I’ve done so.

dedalus on May 30, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Needlessly incendiary language. I’m guessing you repeating a lie is supposed to either convince us or convince you that the language was incendiary. The gay community really is uber-sensitive if that language is hurtful.

You guys dish out what I would consider rude, incediary, hateful, mean-spirited, destructive and uncivil.

Why would anyone take anything Disney character says seriously?

L.N. Smithee on May 30, 2011 at 3:29 AM

In Santorum’s ideal America in which the Warren Court had not instituted a “right to privacy” in Griswold, the “protection against the government,” as you term it, is at the ballot box — either through the state legislatures, or through each state’s initiative process. Again, you said it yourself — “Leave it to the states” — and so did Santorum.

Yet, rather than support his case persuasively Santorum got derailed by needless incendiary language. With most human discourse rhetoric matters and can bury a valid underlying point. It happens between husbands and wives, bosses and employees and it happens more with politicians than in most fields.

Marriage should be left to the state legislative process, but individual privacy ought not be solely in the hands of politicians. Santorum can make a case that Roe was wrongly decided without dismissing Griswold. The presence of an additional life (with rights) makes the cases very different. Palin is one GOP candidate who disagrees with Roe while asserting an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution.

Santorum could have made his point better, but even if he had a reading of the Constitution where there is no right to privacy likely will not work within the context of a national political campaign.

Yet, Santorum carelessly chose his words so that his larger point was lost. The GOP needs politicians who are more adept at making their point.

Please — what are you, twelve years old? Well, I’m not, and I can tell you that if there is a relevant and important point a conservative wants to make, the MSM will miss it — deliberately and maliciously. It doesn’t matter how clear s/he is, it will be re-interpreted to the reader or the viewer as if it is baffling. It’s called “Dowdification,” named after Maureen Dowd, the NY Times op-ed blatherer. Here’s a link to an example of dowdification in practice by then-Washington Post reporter Dan Froomkin (who is now the Senior Washington Correspondent for the Huffington Post). See how I busted him by looking at the original White House transcript and proved there was no way he could have written what he wrote unless he obscured details.

Santorum’s larger point is also problematic. He wants a government that can regulate the bedroom based on identifying an activity that “destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families”. If a local government restricted all sex to reproductive acts, Santorum’s logic appears to offer the individual no protection against the government.

dedalus on May 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM

You see, this is why I wrote “For people who can concentrate enough to take the ‘man on dog’ remark in the spirit in which it was spoken” in my comment.

Now, pay attention: In Santorum’s ideal America in which the Warren Court had not instituted a “right to privacy” in Griswold, the “protection against the government,” as you term it, is at the ballot box — either through the state legislatures, or through each state’s initiative process. Again, you said it yourself — “Leave it to the states” — and so did Santorum. I even put the pertinent text in bold to make sure you read it:

I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn’t want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn’t agree with it, but that’s their right. But I don’t agree with the Supreme Court coming in.

I can understand that you’re impatient because put to a vote of the people, same-sex marriage has yet to win. Even in deep blue California, it’s lost twice over an eight-year span.

Do you know why it was seventeen years before Bowers v. Hardwick was negated by Lawrence v. Texas? Because even though the state of Georgia’s right to ban sodomy was affirmed by the Supreme Court, it stopped enforcing the law, and ultimately repealed it. The only reason there was an opportunity to take anti-sodomy laws to the SCOTUS is because a dumb cop in Texas felt like he needed to cover his butt after barging into a home on a phony 911 report of domestic violence (it was called in by a jealous ex-lover of John Lawrence, the plaintiff). It was there that he found Lawrence and his boyfriend Tyron Garner in flagrante delicto. The rest is history.

In his dissent in Lawrence, Clarence Thomas wrote that the Texas sodomy law in question was — as he quoted Potter Stewart — “profoundly silly,” and that had he been a member of the Texas legislature, he would have voted to overturn it. Instead, what ended up happening threatens to fatally wound existing laws that ban practices most people recognize as perverted and repugnant. If you’re wondering what I mean by that, read the conclusion of a 2009 article in Miami New Times that winds down addressing the Santorum quote:

[18-year-old Cody] Beck believes these are expressions of fear that are natural in the early moments of revolution. “That’s the story throughout history,” he says. “People don’t want to stand up for anything, because they don’t want to get hurt.” He draws some of his own strength from the recent movie Milk, in which Sean Penn plays the nation’s first openly gay elected official, San Francisco City Supervisor Harvey Milk. “If we all stand up at once, we’ll share the load. What’s the point of living if we have to hide who we are?”

Sounds noble, doesn’t it? Now, read the rest of the article, learn about Cody and his far-flung friends, and make sure you have something to heave into.

Note to Miley: Beauty is only skin deep, but stupidity goes to the bone.

infidel4life on May 29, 2011 at 11:46 PM

For the record, I believe you’re required to report to Di Butler whether you’re a Christian or not if you’re going to make a derogatory comment about the 18yo celebrity. Jus sayin.

I can’t know what each poster believes,

That’s right, you don’t. But you felt compelled to single out Christians for using course comments.

but I do know that many people here considers themselves Christians.

And many consider themselves Atheists that use course comments. Did you ever feel the need to single them out?

That means to be Christ-like. If people believe this girl is doing immoral things, shouldn’t they be trying to lift her up, pray she finds her way, and let God judge her? Instead, we have comments about how she’s going to be another Lohan,heading toward Britney territory,and that’s she’s hillbilly trash. If you all can live with yourselves for saying things like that, then ok. I’m saying I can’t, and don’t understand it. I’ll leave it at that.

di butler on May 29, 2011 at 9:00 PM

And all this would make a lot more sense if you demonstrated it was Christians responsible for all teh commets you didn’t like. As it is, I don’t understand what you’re still going on about. What Christians did you ID that made comments?

So, an EIGHTEEN yr old girl who expresses an opinion you don’t share gets called a skank, ho, druggie, trash, hillbilly, etc., here by supposedly good Christian folk and no one sees the hypocrisy? Uh, ok.

di butler on May 28, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Here is your original comment. My original response only took issue that “you” singled out Christians as the people making the comments. One person has Christian in their screen name and he only commented that Tina Fey lost fans over her Palin satire. Hardly a hypocritical observation. Seems to me you have an issue with Christians, singled them out with unfair characterizations. Sound familar?

If so many people here are labeling themselves as Christians, they need to re-examine the things they’ve said in this thread.

Oh, I got you. Okay then, point out the Christians that said the unacceptable comments and I’ll respond to each one. Okay? Which ones are the Christians?

And quit using pop stars are role models for their kids.

di butler on May 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM

I’m sure they don’t.

You look up to Miley Cyrus? That explains a lot.