Well the republican contest just got a lot closer

[cme1201]

Feb 8, 2012 14:18:41 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

ETA: NSFW
(but it's Urban Dictionary - you should know that)

Clinton
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clinton

Lewinsky
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lewinsky

Obama
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=obama

Pelosi
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pelosi

Al Gore
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=al+gore

Biden
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=biden

Let's not pretend the left is the only one that has coined a slang term using the name of a public official. Santorum is funnier than most of these though, so props to the left on that. It seems like the right had a comparable opportunity with Clinton as a slang term, it just didn't take off in quite the same way.

Who is speaking of urban dictionary?

I am speaking of the number one google search when you google santorum.

Who is pretending that it is only the left that does it? I disagree with it whether right left center or out field. Wrong is wrong.

[Deleted]

Urban Dictionary is basically wikipedia for slang. If you look up Santorum there, you will find the definition in question.

The Santorum issue occured in two parts: (1) someone invented the definition - which clearly has occured for the liberal politicians I referenced; and (2) people embraced the term and google bombed the original site - this is the part that conservative pranksters have not successfully pulled off.

My point was that just because one team is more successful at something, doesn't mean that both teams aren't running the same play.

[Deleted]

I'm not saying that what happened to Santorum was fair - although, generally, I am a supporter of internet justice - but I don't think it is false either.

It is fact that Santorum (the candidate) has said things to make the gay community (and Mr. Savage) angry.
It is fact that santorum (the slang term) previously existed as a thing without a name. Now it has a name. It isn't terribly different than naming wastewater treatment facilities or landfills after people, which is attempted from time to time.

[Deleted]

Feb 8, 2012 10:00:45 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

Feb 8, 2012 9:37:06 GMT -5 @businessguy said:

Sure CME, whatever you say, did Santorum offer an apology along with his request for comparing homosexuals to bestaility?

1. Why should one ever need to apologize for having an opinion that is not mainstream?

2. The original interview was not what was reported by AP nor by Laura Lakes Jordan.


This was from the Wiki. Following is from the Actual AP interview from 2003.

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: 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. 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.

Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —

AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.

No where has he compared Homosexuality to Bestiality. He actually says that it's not like that. The Interviewer is the one who wanted it to be a comparison.

www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm

Thank you for that bullshit wall of text. In the same vein why should a group stop doing what they feel is right because they were asked? Both are perfectly acceptable you just seem to be pissed at one and I have a word for that, hypocrisy.

[floridayankee]

Feb 8, 2012 16:11:22 GMT -5 @businessguy said:

Thank you for that bullshit wall of text. In the same vein why should a group stop doing what they feel is right because they were asked? Both are perfectly acceptable you just seem to be pissed at one and I have a word for that, hypocrisy.

Perhaps you might have read that bullshit wall of text before commenting. CME wasn't defending Santourm, just trying to clear the misconception over what he actually said. If you want to continue to march to your masters drumbeat and believe the drama and lies, have at it.

I have legitimate reasons not to vote for him. I don't need phony, manufactured reasons.

[cme1201]

Thank you for that bullshit wall of text. In the same vein why should a group stop doing what they feel is right because they were asked? Both are perfectly acceptable you just seem to be pissed at one and I have a word for that, hypocrisy.

Don't let reality cloud the fantasy world in which you live.

I have shown the actual interview, where he states what he feels no where have you brought anything but false information.

Choose to dislike the man but, do it for real reasons.

[cme1201]

Feb 9, 2012 7:50:23 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Feb 8, 2012 9:30:40 GMT -5 cme1201 said:

I think it is rather disgusting for anyone to use the reference when the person who was targeted by a group of hateful people asked that it be removed numerous times and blatantly told No.

Creating a new word meaning to be as disgusting as possible simply because you do not like the stance of a politician should not be okay, yet it is as long as the one having it done to them is a right leaning individual.

But cme, YOU are the one who told me to Google the word.
Otherwise I never in a million years would have made THAT connection.

I never said for you to google it. What I said ( I Believe ) is "if" you google.

[Deleted]

Feb 8, 2012 16:32:36 GMT -5 floridayankee said:

Feb 8, 2012 16:11:22 GMT -5 @businessguy said:

Thank you for that bullshit wall of text. In the same vein why should a group stop doing what they feel is right because they were asked? Both are perfectly acceptable you just seem to be pissed at one and I have a word for that, hypocrisy.

Perhaps you might have read that bullshit wall of text before commenting. CME wasn't defending Santourm, just trying to clear the misconception over what he actually said. If you want to continue to march to your masters drumbeat and believe the drama and lies, have at it.

I have legitimate reasons not to vote for him. I don't need phony, manufactured reasons.

Personnel attacks and straw men from you FY, I expected better.

[cme1201]

That aside, I think it is a hoot that he won all three contests.

It's a shame that this is the direction that the heartland wants to see the party go.

One more reason to look seriously at 3rd party representation.

[Deleted]

Feb 9, 2012 8:15:18 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Look, all kidding aside, the Google connection is simply ridiculous. I don't see how even the most simple evangelical would believe it, nor that it would affect their vote.
And yes, it is low and despicable to "create" a meaning for a name just to try to sully someone.

That aside, I think it is a hoot that he won all three contests. He doesn't have the money, organization or popularity to actually win, but this is one more small stumbling block for Moderate Mitt.

But it isn't a thing to be believed. It's just a thing. No one has suggested Santorum (the candidate) has any experience with/enjoyment of santorum (the slang term). But if you call a thing by a name long enough, that becomes the name of the thing. It's just a fact.

I'm confident that the site in question would drop in the google rankings were he elected. And I doubt that many Americans are thinking "gosh, I'd love to vote for Santorum, but what will Canada say when they google us?"

People will look at his record and vote accordingly. I don't think he has a chance in heck at the general election and it has nothing to do with the slang term.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 9, 2012 8:15:18 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Look, all kidding aside, the Google connection is simply ridiculous. I don't see how even the most simple evangelical would believe it, nor that it would affect their vote.
And yes, it is low and despicable to "create" a meaning for a name just to try to sully someone.

That aside, I think it is a hoot that he won all three contests. He doesn't have the money, organization or popularity to actually win, but this is one more small stumbling block for Moderate Mitt.

those contests were not very "contested". he will have a lot more trouble in swing states.

as for Santorum's overall chances: he has been in second place for exactly ONE DAY (January 9th). he is going to have to do a lot better than that to really contest. however, as Paul would say, he IS in second place in the only contest that counts at this point: the electoral college.

[reasonfreedom]

I think if all 4 stay in the race that it is a good possibility that there will be an open convention. Either way they are just making it easier for Obama to win. Just imagine how many delegates will be bribed with money if there is an open convention. In the Republican race for a candidate the popular vote doesn't matter, it is what the delegate actually votes. Granted the delegate might not be selected next time to be a representative, but who care if they are getting money for their vote. Why do you think Ron Paul focuses on caucuses. Also when I was in the grassroots campaign we focused on getting our people elected to be delegates in Michigan that way we can bypass the popular vote.