Boards > Current Events > Gay Santorum Aide Outed

pananarama

Worcester, MA

August 2003

AUG 10, 2005 07:24 PM

stockula said:
Liberals do this all the time. They also make really nasty remarks about minorities who happen to have conservative or Republican politics. Gotta keep the identity/victim groups on the Democrat reservation, destroy them if they express individuality. It's a very ugly and malicious characteristic of liberal politics.

[Edited on Aug 09, 2005 by stockula]

no it's more like pointing out to a gentleman that though as a man black, white, asian, indonesian whatever, he may join the kkk, but it may not always be in his best interests.

jinx

D'OH!
Ho-o-o-o-oogan!?!!
KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!
"Ohno", "Ohno", "Ohno", "OOOOHHH YEEEAAAHHH!"

Andvari

Calgary, AB

April 2005

AUG 10, 2005 07:34 PM

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

/rick santorum

Just as Rice would probably not work for Dave Chappelle. it seems odd for a gay man to work for Rick Santorum.

googused

Portland, OR

OLD SKOOL

AUG 10, 2005 07:46 PM

Not only does he work for Satantorum, but I believe he has stated that supports the Senator because he
is a "man of principle" .

So a "man of principle" is someone who equates your lifestyle with bigamy, incest, zoophilia and/or pedophilia?

pananarama

Worcester, MA

August 2003

AUG 10, 2005 07:52 PM

googuse said:
Not only does he work for Satantorum, but I believe he has stated that supports the Senator because he
is a "man of principle" .

So a "man of principle" is someone who equates your lifestyle with bigamy, incest, zoophilia and/or pedophilia?

Hey if I was cheating on my wife with a my brother the 3 year old goat, than is that so wrong?

stockula

Anchorage, AK

May 2003

AUG 11, 2005 12:20 AM

Andvari said:

stockula said:
Liberals do this all the time. They also make really nasty remarks about minorities who happen to have conservative or Republican politics. Gotta keep the identity/victim groups on the Democrat reservation, destroy them if they express individuality. It's a very ugly and malicious characteristic of liberal politics.

[Edited on Aug 09, 2005 by stockula]

It's not about losing an ally, its a question of how you can work for someone that thinks you should be eliminated. Same kind of shock when you discover Jews that worked for Hitler (whoops, godwinned)....how about blacks that worked for the KKK?

You are a little confused, I think. The GOP is not out for the homos like the Nazis were for the Jews or the KKK for negroes. If you think so, you're out of your mind. The entire fact negroes are appointed to high staff level on the Republican President and senators should say as much, Yet, tsuch appointments are seen as a BAD things by so-called gay and negro advocates.

Imagine if Bush appointed white men to such positions? The reaction would have been, "How typical! The old-boy network wins again in positions of real power while unimportant positions get token minority nominations."

[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by stockula]

googused

Portland, OR

OLD SKOOL

AUG 11, 2005 01:20 AM

Negroes?

Are you even human? Are you doing some sort of massive performance art piece?

You are one fucking twisted being.

[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by googuse]

BlastProcessing

USA

OLD SKOOL

AUG 11, 2005 02:26 AM

stockula said:

Andvari said:

stockula said:
Liberals do this all the time. They also make really nasty remarks about minorities who happen to have conservative or Republican politics. Gotta keep the identity/victim groups on the Democrat reservation, destroy them if they express individuality. It's a very ugly and malicious characteristic of liberal politics.

[Edited on Aug 09, 2005 by stockula]

It's not about losing an ally, its a question of how you can work for someone that thinks you should be eliminated. Same kind of shock when you discover Jews that worked for Hitler (whoops, godwinned)....how about blacks that worked for the KKK?

You are a little confused, I think. The GOP is not out for the homos like the Nazis were for the Jews or the KKK for negroes. If you think so, you're out of your mind. The entire fact negroes are appointed to high staff level on the Republican President and senators should say as much, Yet, tsuch appointments are seen as a BAD things by so-called gay and negro advocates.

Imagine if Bush appointed white men to such positions? The reaction would have been, "How typical! The old-boy network wins again in positions of real power while unimportant positions get token minority nominations."

[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by stockula]

You're not paying the first tiniest bit of attention to the issue at hand, are you.

SomethingStupid

North Hollywood, CA

March 2004

AUG 11, 2005 02:45 AM

Ecto_Cooler said:

stockula said:
Liberals do this all the time. They also make really nasty remarks about minorities who happen to have conservative or Republican politics. Gotta keep the identity/victim groups on the Democrat reservation, destroy them if they express individuality. It's a very ugly and malicious characteristic of liberal politics.

[Edited on Aug 09, 2005 by stockula]

This is not a credible statement coming from Stockula, but I'm sure if you asked Dick Cheney's daughter, who by the way is gay, Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter will tell you that from her homosexual point of view....and a blah blah blah.

And, yes, it's hilarious to see the faces of white liberals get twisted with disappointment and disbelief when they find out a minority they've befriended doesn't share their views. Usually it's followed by some form of "But the evil Republicans have deceived you!" So then they've offended you twice, because not only are they disappointed in you, they make it clear they think you're too stupid to realize the right-wing conspiracy is definitely going to fuck you over.

Ah, good times.

Have you guys not read this thread?? The second fucking post in it was by the original poster asking why the bloody fuck someone who is gay would work for someone who equates their lifestyle to bestiality. In other words, find a Republican senator who is pro gay or even just against gay marriage, not someone who thinks your lifestyle is abomination. I totally accept that blacks and homosexuals are Republicans, but I wouldn't expect a black person to take a position with an openly racist senator regardless of political affliation. Let's look at the quotation, shall we?

We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose....And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

He says he has no problem with homosexuals, though, provided that they don't act on their urges. Isn't that nice? And, as s5 noted, if he doesn't want privacy, what's all this bitching about his aide being outed? If his aide so much as touched a guy impurely, we all should've known about it.

[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by TedKoppel]

jake_lex

Lexington, KY

February 2003

AUG 11, 2005 08:51 AM

No one is saying that a gay person cannot be a Republican. As noted above, they may agree with the Republicans on matters of economics and national security.

However, continuing to work for a man who compared consensual gay sex to "man-on-dog" action is another matter entirely.

Andvari

Calgary, AB

April 2005

AUG 11, 2005 09:44 AM

stockula said:

Andvari said:

stockula said:
Liberals do this all the time. They also make really nasty remarks about minorities who happen to have conservative or Republican politics. Gotta keep the identity/victim groups on the Democrat reservation, destroy them if they express individuality. It's a very ugly and malicious characteristic of liberal politics.

[Edited on Aug 09, 2005 by stockula]

It's not about losing an ally, its a question of how you can work for someone that thinks you should be eliminated. Same kind of shock when you discover Jews that worked for Hitler (whoops, godwinned)....how about blacks that worked for the KKK?

You are a little confused, I think. The GOP is not out for the homos like the Nazis were for the Jews or the KKK for negroes. If you think so, you're out of your mind. The entire fact negroes are appointed to high staff level on the Republican President and senators should say as much, Yet, tsuch appointments are seen as a BAD things by so-called gay and negro advocates.

Imagine if Bush appointed white men to such positions? The reaction would have been, "How typical! The old-boy network wins again in positions of real power while unimportant positions get token minority nominations."
[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by stockula]

I wasn't implying that the entire GOP is anti-gay, but Santorum clearly is. Hence a gay man working for him makes as much sense as a black man in the KKK.

[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by Andvari]

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK

August 2002

AUG 11, 2005 02:11 PM

Andvari said:

stockula said:

Andvari said:

stockula said:
Liberals do this all the time. They also make really nasty remarks about minorities who happen to have conservative or Republican politics. Gotta keep the identity/victim groups on the Democrat reservation, destroy them if they express individuality. It's a very ugly and malicious characteristic of liberal politics.

[Edited on Aug 09, 2005 by stockula]

It's not about losing an ally, its a question of how you can work for someone that thinks you should be eliminated. Same kind of shock when you discover Jews that worked for Hitler (whoops, godwinned)....how about blacks that worked for the KKK?

You are a little confused, I think. The GOP is not out for the homos like the Nazis were for the Jews or the KKK for negroes. If you think so, you're out of your mind. The entire fact negroes are appointed to high staff level on the Republican President and senators should say as much, Yet, tsuch appointments are seen as a BAD things by so-called gay and negro advocates.

Imagine if Bush appointed white men to such positions? The reaction would have been, "How typical! The old-boy network wins again in positions of real power while unimportant positions get token minority nominations."
[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by stockula]

I wasn't implying that the entire GOP is anti-gay, but Santorum clearly is. Hence a gay man working for him makes as much sense as a black man in the KKK.

[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by Andvari]

Exactly. This guy working for Santorum is like someone who likes to drink being the spokesperson for the Women's Christian Temporance Union. It's like someone who smokes pot being the spokesperson for the DEA. It's like someone who enjoys pornography being the spokesperson for John Ashcroft. You get what I'm saying??

NickFaust

USA

April 2004

AUG 11, 2005 02:25 PM

Here is a question: Why do people respond to stockula's posts as if they were something serious.

Trolls troll. The rest of us? We just have to avoid stepping in it. It is a simple thing.

Ryan_Dipietro

Naples, FL

April 2004

AUG 11, 2005 02:32 PM

stockula said:

Andvari said:

stockula said:
Liberals do this all the time. They also make really nasty remarks about minorities who happen to have conservative or Republican politics. Gotta keep the identity/victim groups on the Democrat reservation, destroy them if they express individuality. It's a very ugly and malicious characteristic of liberal politics.

[Edited on Aug 09, 2005 by stockula]

It's not about losing an ally, its a question of how you can work for someone that thinks you should be eliminated. Same kind of shock when you discover Jews that worked for Hitler (whoops, godwinned)....how about blacks that worked for the KKK?

You are a little confused, I think. The GOP is not out for the homos like the Nazis were for the Jews or the KKK for negroes. If you think so, you're out of your mind. The entire fact negroes are appointed to high staff level on the Republican President and senators should say as much, Yet, tsuch appointments are seen as a BAD things by so-called gay and negro advocates.

Imagine if Bush appointed white men to such positions? The reaction would have been, "How typical! The old-boy network wins again in positions of real power while unimportant positions get token minority nominations."

[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by stockula]

Negroes? 1966 called, they want their term back.

GlassjawRy

Van Nuys, CA

August 2005

AUG 11, 2005 02:41 PM

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=16630

at that link theres Is an interview By John Stuart of the daily show and Rick santorum. It's fucking hilarious. you can see how absolutely crazy he is

[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by GlassjawRy]

akl

Sacramento, CA

February 2004

AUG 11, 2005 03:28 PM

stockula said:
Liberals do this all the time. They also make really nasty remarks about minorities who happen to have conservative or Republican politics. Gotta keep the identity/victim groups on the Democrat reservation, destroy them if they express individuality. It's a very ugly and malicious characteristic of liberal politics.

I bet Val Plume totally agrees with you.

Also, Santorum deserves to have a particularly dirty sexual act named after him.

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

AUG 11, 2005 03:39 PM

adam_ said:
Also, Santorum deserves to have a particularly dirty sexual act named after him.

Not act.. . substance.

/nitpicking.

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL

January 2005

AUG 11, 2005 04:12 PM

Subrosa said:

adam_ said:
Also, Santorum deserves to have a particularly dirty sexual act named after him.

Not act.. . substance.

/nitpicking.

bwahahaha!

Aaron

Shakopee, MN

July 2004

AUG 11, 2005 07:35 PM

stockula said:

Andvari said:

stockula said:
Liberals do this all the time. They also make really nasty remarks about minorities who happen to have conservative or Republican politics. Gotta keep the identity/victim groups on the Democrat reservation, destroy them if they express individuality. It's a very ugly and malicious characteristic of liberal politics.

[Edited on Aug 09, 2005 by stockula]

It's not about losing an ally, its a question of how you can work for someone that thinks you should be eliminated. Same kind of shock when you discover Jews that worked for Hitler (whoops, godwinned)....how about blacks that worked for the KKK?

You are a little confused, I think. The GOP is not out for the homos like the Nazis were for the Jews or the KKK for negroes. If you think so, you're out of your mind. The entire fact negroes are appointed to high staff level on the Republican President and senators should say as much, Yet, tsuch appointments are seen as a BAD things by so-called gay and negro advocates.

Imagine if Bush appointed white men to such positions? The reaction would have been, "How typical! The old-boy network wins again in positions of real power while unimportant positions get token minority nominations."

[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by stockula]

Dude the preferred nomenclature is African-American, please.

sovietcanada

Montreal, QC

February 2005

AUG 11, 2005 07:57 PM

Man.. fuck Santorum. He makes me feel dirty to have grown up in PA.

Oh man. Oh man! Fuck Spectre too.

[Edited on Aug 11, 2005 by SovietCanada]

Mirtzig

Kansas City, MO

July 2005

AUG 11, 2005 08:05 PM

yes, santorum is a very nasty substance indeed.

BatAttaK

Tacoma, WA

OLD SKOOL

AUG 12, 2005 09:15 PM

stockula said:
Liberals do this all the time. They also make really nasty remarks about minorities who happen to have conservative or Republican politics. Gotta keep the identity/victim groups on the Democrat reservation, destroy them if they express individuality. It's a very ugly and malicious characteristic of liberal politics.

[Edited on Aug 09, 2005 by stockula]

Awwwww...is da po widdle right wingers getting picked on by the biiiiig baaaad liberals again. Is that mean ol' cultural elite breaking up your widdle book burning again? awwwwww

Necia

San Francisco, CA

August 2005

AUG 15, 2005 01:22 AM

Keith said:

It's one thing to be a conservative homosexual who feels that gays should not have the right to marry, and it's another for one to be the paid spokesman for a man who equates their sexual preference with beastiality.

Yeah, just a bit. That guy's going to have a hard landing when whatever he's using to convince himself that he believes in Santorum and the antigay Right lets him down.

Necia

San Francisco, CA

August 2005

AUG 15, 2005 01:25 AM

pananarama said:

Keith said:
And really, I feel less "Haha! Gotcha!" about this and more "How could he? How could a gay man work for Rick Santorum?"

How could he be a human being and work for Santorum, not only is Santorum a homophobe but he blamed the clergy abuse thing on the people of Mass, dude, he's one totally fuckin fucked up muther fucker, indeed.

But hey! He's apparently one hell of a doctor, to have assessed Terri Schiavo over video feed as clearly having brain activity, despite the physically-present doctors' diagnoses to the contrary. With that kind of gift, I don't know what the hell he's doing wasting his time in the Senate . . .

akl

Sacramento, CA

February 2004

AUG 15, 2005 07:33 PM

Subrosa said:

adam_ said:
Also, Santorum deserves to have a particularly dirty sexual act named after him.

Not act.. . substance.

/nitpicking.

holy bejesus, that's perfect

BOARDS:

TOPICS:

Worcester, MA

August 2003

AUG 10, 2005 07:24 PM

Calgary, AB

April 2005

AUG 10, 2005 07:34 PM

Portland, OR

OLD SKOOL

AUG 10, 2005 07:46 PM

Worcester, MA

August 2003

AUG 10, 2005 07:52 PM

Anchorage, AK

May 2003

AUG 11, 2005 12:20 AM

Portland, OR

OLD SKOOL

AUG 11, 2005 01:20 AM

USA

OLD SKOOL

AUG 11, 2005 02:26 AM

North Hollywood, CA

March 2004

AUG 11, 2005 02:45 AM

Lexington, KY

February 2003

AUG 11, 2005 08:51 AM

Calgary, AB

April 2005

AUG 11, 2005 09:44 AM

Oklahoma City, OK

August 2002

AUG 11, 2005 02:11 PM

USA

April 2004

AUG 11, 2005 02:25 PM

Naples, FL

April 2004

AUG 11, 2005 02:32 PM

Van Nuys, CA

August 2005

AUG 11, 2005 02:41 PM

akl

Sacramento, CA

February 2004

AUG 11, 2005 03:28 PM

San Francisco, CA

July 2004

AUG 11, 2005 03:39 PM

Batavia, IL

January 2005

AUG 11, 2005 04:12 PM

Shakopee, MN

July 2004

AUG 11, 2005 07:35 PM

sovietcanada

Montreal, QC

February 2005

AUG 11, 2005 07:57 PM

Kansas City, MO

July 2005

AUG 11, 2005 08:05 PM

Tacoma, WA

OLD SKOOL

AUG 12, 2005 09:15 PM

San Francisco, CA

August 2005

AUG 15, 2005 01:22 AM

San Francisco, CA

August 2005

AUG 15, 2005 01:25 AM

akl

Sacramento, CA

February 2004

AUG 15, 2005 07:33 PM