Can Rick Santorum become U.S. president if his name isn’t safe for kids to Google

Miss*Bijou

Sexy Troublemaker
Nov 9, 2006
3,136
44
48
Montréal
:pound::pound: oh dear, this guy's too much. Did you know about the "Santorum"?

I don't know why I haven't posted about this until now. Maybe someone already has, I don't know.

But it's not to be missed. :clap2:



Can Rick Santorum become U.S. president if his name isn’t even safe for kids to Google?

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/p...kids-to-google/article2294581/?service=mobile



Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is nobody's idea of a sexy politician. With his earnest theological lectures and propensity for grandpa-like sweater-vests that even Stephen Harper would find too dowdy, he's the opposite of a Kennedy or a Trudeau.

“I may not be the guy that the girls are initially attracted to when they walk into the dance hall,” Mr. Santorum himself admits. “But ultimately, once you get to know all the folks, I'm the one you want to take home to Mom.”

Yet the truth is that, whether you're with him or against him, Mr. Santorum's candidacy is all about sex. From birth control to abortion to same-sex marriage, matters of the heart and loins are the main planks in his conservative-culture-warrior platform. And that seduced enough of the Republican base to have brought him within eight votes of victory in this week's Iowa primary.

Where less-virile candidates rail against abortion, Mr. Santorum denounces even birth control. “One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is, I think, the dangers of contraception in this country,” he told an interviewer last October. “Many of the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that's okay. Contraception is okay.' It's not okay. It's a licence to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

He has also used remarkably pungent terms to attack same-sex marriage, comparing it in 2003 to “man-on-child” or “man-on-dog” sex. Those remarks earned the ire of gay-rights activists – including, unfortunately for Mr. Santorum, sex-advice columnist Dan Savage.

To give the then-senator from Pennsylvania a lesson in the dangers of abusive language, the Seattle-based but nationally syndicated columnist asked his readers to come up with alternative, offensive meanings for “santorum.” The winning entry defined it as, to put it delicately, a byproduct of anal sex.

The neologism quickly took off, becoming one of the most successful digital pranks of the decade, and raising this novel conundrum: Can a man become president if his last name is not safe for schoolchildren to Google?


Now, because of Mr. Savage, it is almost impossible to write about Mr. Santorum without double entendres, whether deliberate or accidental. On National Public Radio, a reporter referred to the “come-from-behind candidate” while the Christian Broadcasting Network proclaimed, “Santorum surging to the top.” Fox News made the unfortunate decision to use the colour brown to highlight areas in Iowa where Mr. Santorum was most successful.

Mr. Santorum repeatedly has complained about the savaging of his good name, arguing that it is an affront to civility. “There are foul people out there who do horrible things,” he told an interviewer in 2011.

A former altar boy, Mr. Santorum is often portrayed as an avatar of Catholic conservatism. Yet it's only on “family values” issues that he follows Vatican dictates. As a foreign-policy hawk, an opponent of the welfare state, a believer in the death penalty, an adversary of immigrant rights, a foe of environmentalism and a climate-change denier, he is well outside the mainstream of Catholic social thought as articulated by both the Vatican and the American church.

In fact, his biggest fans are among evangelical Protestants, who made up the bulk of his Iowa supporters. In past decades, conservative Protestants were usually pro-contraception (and often anti-Catholic), even when they opposed abortion. This has been changing: Increasingly, evangelical Christians are starting to echo their Catholic brethren in arguing that birth control is the first step in the moral regression that leads to abortion.

One significant glue in this alliance is the “personhood” movement, supported by Catholics and Protestants alike, which seeks to bestow legal rights to fetuses, a move that would make illegal not just abortion but some forms of a birth control such as the intrauterine device.

Will the Santorum surge soon be, er, spreading across the United States? Even some conservatives are skeptical, believing that Mr. Santorum's holy war against sexual freedom goes too far.

As David Frum dryly noted on Twitter, birth control is “pretty popular outside Iowa.” On the National Review website, Ramesh Ponnuru, himself a conservative Catholic, confessed that “there is no significant constituency in the GOP that wants a president to make the case against contraception.” Yet perhaps these pundits underestimate the appeal of Mr. Santorum's brand of sexual politics.

With the lingering recession and the European Union teetering, the 2012 election was supposed to be all about the economy. Divisive social issues were to be put on the back burner. But Mr. Santorum has shown that even in hard times, it's still easier to spark some voters' imaginations by talking about bedroom controversies rather than boardroom ones.





In Dan Savage's own words:



My readers and I did not redefine Santorum because he disagrees with us strongly about gay marriage. We redefined his name after he compared gay relationships to dog fucking and child rape—"man on dog, man on child"—in an sprawling interview with a freaked-out AP reporter. In that interview Santorum insisted that Americans do not have a constitutional right to privacy. Santorum defended sodomy laws that criminalized private, consensual, adult sexual activity—between gay or straight couples. It wasn't Santorum's opposition to same-sex marriage, it was his support for bringing felony charges against gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and heterosexuals for private, consensual, adult sexual conduct that inspired the campaign. Here's an excerpt from the interview that lead to Santorum's Google Problem:



AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?


SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.


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.


Santorum's Google Problem wasn't created because my readers and I strongly disagreed with Santorum about gay marriage, Noam. I strongly disagree with—still—Barack Obama about gay marriage. Santorum's last name was redefined to mean "the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometime the byproduct of anal sex" after the sitting US Senator told a reporter that Americans do not enjoy a constitutional right to privacy and agued that the states should be able to arrest, prosecute, and imprison people—Lawrence v. Texas was a case about two men who were arrested after police burst into their bedroom, found them having sex, and arrested them—for private, consensual, adult sexual acts; for performing or obtaining abortions; for supplying women with birth control; for using birth control. And to top it all off Santorum ended the interview by equating loving, same-sex relationships with child rape and dog fucking.


http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...fidential-to-noam-cohen-at-the-new-york-times


:pound::pound::pound:
 

Dgodus

Banned
Nov 5, 2011
855
0
0
Here and There
Bwhahahaha!

Hope he gets a running partner named Smegma or something.

Should go visit the Greek isles in his honor.

Thx for the laugh on a Monday morning.

Oh and that guy is bloody tool.
 

hmm3030

addicted to love
Dec 3, 2007
73
0
0
Thanks for the laugh Miss B. :)

It appears that every one of the republican candidates have come off their meds. If there wasnt a strong possibility that one of these nutcases could be President, I would find it comical.
 

SFMIKE

New member
Jul 3, 2004
2,916
6
0
63
San Francisco Bay Area
The bigger question might be can a Mormon (2) or a Catholic (2, also) beat an established President?

Religion carries a lot of weight in the US South, and if you are not an Evangelical, do not come-a-knockin'.
 
Vancouver Escorts