Santorums people

[RandomGuy]

Yet another example of people who have gone off the deep end:

Indiana lawmaker says Girl Scouts promote abortion

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Undaunted by ridicule from the leader of his own party, an Indiana lawmaker is standing by his allegations that the Girl Scouts is a radical organization that promotes abortions and homosexuality.

The scouts and Planned Parenthood have dismissed Rep. Bob Morris' comments as absurd, as did Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma. But Morris, a Republican, told The Associated Press his critics need to do more research into the 100-year-old scouting organization.

"My family and I took a view and we're sticking by it," Morris said Tuesday, adding that his daughters were joining an alternative group for young girls run by conservative Christians. "My girls are no longer Girl Scouts. They're now going to join American Heritage Girls."

Morris' comments were the butt of jokes inside the House on Tuesday, with Bosma spending much of the day handing out Thin Mints to lawmakers. He joked that Morris' comments led him to buy hundreds of cases of the famous Girl Scout cookies.

"I purchased 278 cases of Girl Scout cookies in the last four hours," said a clearly sarcastic Bosma, who closed Tuesday's session by asking the former Girl Scouts in the chamber to stand up.

Morris' comments about the Girl Scouts came in a letter he sent to House Republicans on Saturday that said he had conducted some research on the Internet and discovered that the scouts are a "tactical arm" of Planned Parenthood.

The Girl Scouts flatly denied Morris' accusations, and Planned Parenthood of Indiana issued a separate statement calling Morris' charges "woefully inaccurate."

"On the national level, inflammatory and generally inaccurate claims about a partnership between the Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood have been promoted primarily by anti-choice lawmakers seeking to place pressure on organizations to disassociate or distance themselves from Planned Parenthood," Betty Cockrum, the chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, said in a statement.

Morris, in his letter to lawmakers, said some Christian conservatives who share his concerns have pulled their children out of Girl Scouts. He also pointed to a Colorado Girl Scout troop's acceptance of a transgender child last month as another reason to leave the group.

http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-lawmaker-says-girl-scouts-promote-abortion-150745801.html

[George Gervin's Afro]

American Heritage Girls..lol

[RandomGuy]

American Heritage Girls..lol

You noticed that too? :lol

Couldn't get more cliched if they had tried. Sounds like something Colbert might come up with in a satire piece.

I must say that at least the guy is so obviously nutty that even other Republicans are making fun of him. *That* says something.

[TeyshaBlue]

American Heritage Girls..lol

I DO NOT want to see those uniforms.:depressed

[Blake]

Putting aspirin in thin mints and placing them between the girls legs would help solve some of the abortion problems, imo.

Might actually boost the out of control lesbian problem though

[baseline bum]

He also pointed to a Colorado Girl Scout troop's acceptance of a transgender child last month as another reason to leave the group.

What a piece of shit, complaining about the girl scouts not discriminating against a fucking 7 year-old?

[Oh, Gee!!]

hataz gonna hate

[Goran Dragic]

:lmao:lmao American Heritage Girls :lmao:lmao

[101A]

RE OP: Ridiculous - deserves ridicule.


but, Thread Title?

[RandomGuy]

RE OP: Ridiculous - deserves ridicule.


but, Thread Title?

The guy in the OP reminds me greatly of the social conservatives that seem attracted to a candidate like Santorum, whose evangelical cred is beyond question it seems.

[Nbadan]

One big happy family

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Dij6WEeIFp4/TwTgLtjLZnI/AAAAAAAAAxs/ES1-bcrnQoc/s1600/rick-santorum-family-e8430.jpg

[NewcastleKEG]

When the system fails.....the radicals rise to the top

[Wild Cobra]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Dij6WEeIFp4/TwTgLtjLZnI/AAAAAAAAAxs/ES1-bcrnQoc/s1600/rick-santorum-family-e8430.jpg

Did daddy have beans before the debate again?

[Blake]

wow, that picture is creepy yet hilarious

[boutons_deux]

The Catholicization of the American Right

Rick Santorum is a case in point. Santorum's is a specifically Catholic form of faith. The recent flap over contraception is only an example of a much deeper phenomenon. As observers have noted, he talks frequently about natural law, but rarely quotes the Bible directly -- his arguments draw on a theologically informed view of the nature of the world, not a personal relationship with the text.

Indeed, in the past Santorum has been quite forthright about the fact that he does not look to the Bible for guidance, he relies quite properly on the guidance of the Church. There is obviously nothing wrong with that ... but it sits very curiously with traditional Evangelical Protestant attitudes.

The answer is not that evangelicals have become any less Protestant. In a 2011 American Values Survey, 93% of white evangelicals say it is important for a candidate to have strong religious beliefs, versus 69% for Catholics saying the same thing. And 36% of white evangelical voters said they would be uncomfortable voting for a candidate who had strong religious beliefs that were different from their own, up from 29% in 2010, a change that may reflect the effects of a prominent Mormon candidate in the mix. In other words, evangelical voters care a great deal that a candidate's religion accord with their own... and they are supporting Catholic candidates. So what is going on?

To understand what is going on, we need to move from the role of Catholic individuals to a broader, more metaphorical idea of a Catholic style of political reasoning. "Catholic" in this exercise means responding to leadership; focusing on outcomes (think "doctrine of works"); and a Manichean view of the world in which the Church -- as opposed to mere churches -- stands as a bulwark against equally great opposing forces, so that outside the Church there can be only chaos. In this sense a Catholic Republican voter would be someone looking for a commanding general to lead Christian soldiers on a crusade, would care about a candidate's policies rather than his soul, and respond to a call to view the Republican Party as the last bastion of civilisation in a howling wilderness. Extending the metaphor, a "Protestant" conservative should reject the idea of leaders in favour of grass roots communalism; local self-direction in the congregationalist model; care about character and personal values more than specific stances or doctrines; and see the world as a mass of sinners who are to be judged individually by the quality of their soul rather than by their enlistment in one party or the other.

In this metaphorical sense, the "Catholic" political style is strongest among evangelical Protestant voters, not actual Catholics. The eagerness of Catholic bishops to jump into a fight over contraception, for example, does not reflect that attitudes of their parishoners, but it gets strong support from evangelicals. Similarly, in one recent poll more than two-thirds of Catholic voters supported some sort of legal recognition of gay couples' relationships, with 44% favoring same-sex marriage; in very sharp contrast, an outright majority of evangelical voters said there should be no legal recognition of a same-sex relationship.

In political terms, the evangelical Protestant Right has become Catholicized. They do not see Catholicism as a religion very different from their own because it leads to the same positions on the battlefield, call it Fortress GOP. It is a political worldview that is singularly well suited to negative politics. Who cares whether your guy is actually a bit of a nut-case or has some sleaze in his history if he will defeat the forces of darkness? Liberals tolerate venality in their candidates if they believe they will do good; "Catholic" conservatives tolerate venality if they believe their candidates will defeat evil. (Ironically, all of this has moved the American religious Right in the direction of becoming more and more like a traditional European right-wing political movement, rather than a populist movement in the American Jacksonian tradition.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-schweber/the-catholicization-of-th_b_1298435.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

==========

Add in the very nasty, pro-institution/anti-citizen extreme right-wing activists on the SCOTUS, and you've got a real mess, lasting for decades.

[boutons_deux]

Santorum Makes Campaign Swing Through Seventeenth Century

In an effort to underscore his core beliefs leading up to this Tuesday night’s primary contests, former Sen. Rick Santorum made a campaign swing through the Seventeenth Century today.

At the first stop of his ambitious journey, Mr. Santorum restated his reason for seeking the White House: “I am running for President today because the position of Spanish Inquisitor is no longer available.”

The former Pennsylvania Senator served up red meat to his seventeenth-century supporters, telling them, “Since we all agree that contraception is a bad idea, it’s time to take a harder look at electricity and soap.”

Mr. Santorum, who said that in his first day in office he would repeal the Age of Enlightenment, stressed that he had home-schooled all seven of his children: “That means there are at least eight people in this country who don’t understand evolution.”

In a lighter moment, Sen. Santorum told his audience what he said was his favorite joke: “A Kenyan, a Muslim and a socialist walk into a bar. And then he makes everyone get an abortion.”

Elsewhere on the campaign trail, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich scored points with this comment on education: “We should leave no child behind, only wives.”

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

[boutons_deux]

http://www.readersupportednews.org/images/stories/article_imgs5k/5822-rick-the-preacher-022012.jpg

Theology for Dummies

n case you all missed it in your preparations for today's celebration of Fillmore/Pierce/Buchanan Day today, Rick Santorum spent the weekend roaming the landscape and talking very much like a nut on a great many topics, and have I mentioned recently what a dick this guy is? I am not kidding. The Republican party is about a half-step away from handing its presidential nomination to an out-and-out religious fanatic whose views, as expressed to allegedly evolved primates on the campaign trail, are not dissimilar to those that some people listen to on their short-wave sets in survivalist camps in upper Michigan, or those that other people hear transmitted to them from St. Michael The Archangel through the fillings in their teeth. There were a number of reasons why the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided six years ago that they no longer wanted to be represented in the U.S. Senate by fetus-fondling Torquemada. Over the past few days, we have seen only a few of them.

Santorum now has attached himself to the most extreme rightist positions on both women's health care and on the various issues of environmental protection. He has aligned himself with the most extreme elements of his party on both those issues. It doesn't matter a damn any more that he has more "blue-collar credibility" than Mitt Romney - so does Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands - and it doesn't matter a damn that he actually makes the right mumble-noises about his plan to revive American manufacturing, which, anyway, if you look at it closely, is more a plan to revive the personal profits of the people who employ American manufacturing workers. He has decided, on issues that by his own admission are at the core of who he is, to make common cause with the most singularly exotic fauna of the political fringe. Let us face facts. If your opinion on the coverage of pre-natal screening within the Affordable Care Act is based on the notion that the president wants pre-natal screening to be used fundamentally as a Trojan Horse for culling disabled children from society, you've strayed pretty far from the pack. And if you start trafficking in the idea that, say, cap-and-trade is an expression of a "theology," phony or otherwise, you've gone zooming into that zany dimension where every word simply means what you want it to mean.

(Also, in opposing the coverage of all pre-natal screening for whatever reason, Santorum is also adopting a position that will save large insurance companies a lot of money. I do not believe this is accidental, either.)

As it happens, for non-bloggy reasons I need not go into here, I've spent the last week or so reading actual theology from actual theologians, going all the way back to Origen and Tertullian on Christian pacifism, and also hanging around with Erasmius, Luther, and Calvin, while they chew over predestination and free will. (Love that old Dion song. "I think I saw him walking over the hill/ With Desiderius, Martin and John.") I know theologians, Rick. I went to school with theologians, Rick. And you, Rick, are not a theologian, nor any great judge of who is and is not acting out of a "theology." And neither, I would point out, is the president of the United States. A difference in opinion on how we best save our battered planet is not a theological dispute. The answers to it are not to be found in Scripture, or in the writings of the Church Fathers, unless you count Glenn Beck, which I don't, and I think I probably could have gotten Clement of Alexandria to agree with me on that one, too. The answers are to be found in how we argue with each other through our politics. That's messy, and nasty, and uncivil, and so can theology be, but what is being argued about is neither sacred nor ineffable. The only reason to frame it that way is to demonstrate what a good theocrat you can be, and to give people a god-haunted reason for not recycling, or for bitching some more about lightbulbs.

This is not something a candidate should do lightly, or because it gives a candidate a leg up on another candidate who might be, you know, the member of a religion that some of your primary target voters think is a cult. Political campaigns are not theological. It is dangerous to make them so. You get people turning fundamentally political arguments into theological disputes, and you're not far from the darker impulses that lead to the bastinado and a very dire St. Bartholomew's Day. That Rick Santorum is willing to do this, like a child giggling with a blowtorch, is reason enough to disqualify him ever from a position of secular power. The rhetoric he has adopted comes from a history charred by fire, and sodden with blood.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rick-santorum-theology-6766410

[101A]

One big happy family

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Dij6WEeIFp4/TwTgLtjLZnI/AAAAAAAAAxs/ES1-bcrnQoc/s1600/rick-santorum-family-e8430.jpg

That picture right there would cost him the election, all else being equal, IMO. Most American would not want that to be the image they portray to the world (not talking about the girl) - the absolute opposite of hip or cool; at least Bush had the rugged cowboy image going. I believe it was taken after his concession speech in '06.

[101A]

They do not see Catholicism as a religion very different from their own

Because it's not.

It's a different denomination within the same religion.

What an ignorant dumbass..(the author of the artice I grabbed this quote from; though the rest was crap, this was the most glaring.)

[Winehole23]

Bob Casey won that seat, no?

[101A]

Bob Casey won that seat, no?

Yep.

[boutons_deux]

Because it's not.

It's a different denomination within the same religion.

What an ignorant dumbass..(the author of the artice I grabbed this quote from; though the rest was crap, this was the most glaring.)

Catholicism is very different from Protestantism. Many Protestants are vehemently anti-Catholic.

Within Protestantisms sects, there are huge differences and battles.

Calling themselves "Christian" (in name only, for many) is about all they have in common.

[boutons_deux]

The two sides of Rick Santorum

a man who portrays himself in his presidential primary campaign as an outsider taking on the establishment, but also a man who played a good inside game during four years in the House and 12 in the Senate.

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=1697196&postId=1697196&postUserId=7&sessionToken=&catId=5219&curAbsIndex=1&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%2 6DQ%3DsectionId%253A5219%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

=========

InSaneTorum is as much as an outsider as Noot or Willard Gecko.

[boutons_deux]

InSaneTorum got dinged up pretty bad in the last debate

Michigan polls show Romney gained after GOP debate

must-win state for Mitt Romney. The Michigan native holds a three-point edge over Santorum in one poll and a slightly more comfortable six-point advantage in the other.

Romney pulling away from Santorum, by 40% to 34%. Just three days earlier, the same pollster had Santorum up by a 38-34 margin.

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=1699293&postId=1699293&postUserId=7&sessionToken=&catId=5217&curAbsIndex=1&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%2 6DQ%3DsectionId%253A5217%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

[boutons_deux]

But Willard Gecko keeps stepping on his dick

Romney: My Wife Drives ‘A Couple Of Cadillacs’

Ann Romney has two Cadillac SRX SUVs, one in California and one in Massachusetts.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/02/24/432238/rommney-wife-cadillacs/

[desflood]

"My girls are no longer Girl Scouts. They're now going to join American Heritage Girls."
And while I'm very happy for Mr. Morris, my girl scout will be selling cookies at the mall today :lol

[boutons_deux]

God spoke to dubya, now he's speaking to InSaneTorum and his deluded wife

Karen Santorum: Rick's Presidential Run Is 'God's Will'

"I did always feel in my heart that God had big plans for Rick. Eventually it was there, tugging at my heart," she said. "When Obamacare passed, that was it. That put the fire in my belly."

Rick Santorum saying that his wife loves the talk-show host (Glib Beck) - "loves you more than me sometimes,"

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/10160-karen-santorum-ricks-presidential-run-is-gods-will

[Goran Dragic]

One big happy family

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Dij6WEeIFp4/TwTgLtjLZnI/AAAAAAAAAxs/ES1-bcrnQoc/s1600/rick-santorum-family-e8430.jpg
:lmao the daughter looks like she's Amish

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao the daughter looks like she's Amish
I wonder who sewed the dolls matching dress.

[boutons_deux]

Pennsylvania voters say Santorum is too extreme, can't beat Obama

Rick Santorum may be a mystery, a bit of an anomaly, to most American voters, but Pennsylvanians have known him a long time. And six years ago they overwhelmingly chose to sever ties.

Now Santorum has re-emerged as a serious contender in the Republican presidential primary, and Pennsylvania voters have mixed feelings about his return. At best, most find him honest about his beliefs. At worst, half say those beliefs are too extreme for the presidency.

Just 13% feel strongly that Santorum could beat President Obama in the general election, compared with 45% who feel strongly that he cannot,

http://mobile.chicagotribune.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=1711610&postId=1711610&postUserId=54&sessionToken=&catId=7570&curAbsIndex=1&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A54%26DFC%3Dcat1%252Ccat2% 252Ccat3%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%26DQ%3DsectionId%25 3A7570%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

[boutons_deux]

Santorum and the Sexual Revolution

By CHARLES M. BLOW

Rick Santorum wants to bring sexy back ... to the 1950s, when he was born.

That is because Santorum seems to have an unhealthy fixation with, and passionate disdain for, the 1960s and the sexual freedoms that followed.

To fully understand Santorum’s strident rejection of the 1960s, it’s instructive to recall a speech and question-and-answer session he gave in 2008 to a course on religion and politics at the Oxford Center for Religion and Public Life in Washington.

The speech was interesting, but the answers he gave to the questions that followed were truly illuminating.

In response to a question about the kinds of words he had heard “attached to religion and politics” during his years in the Senate, Santorum ventured off onto sex:

“It comes down to sex. That’s what it’s all about. It comes down to freedom, and it comes down to sex. If you have anything to do with any of the sexual issues, and if you are on the wrong side of being able to do all of the sexual freedoms you want, you are a bad guy. And you’re dangerous because you are going to limit my freedom in an area that’s the most central to me. And that’s the way it’s looked at.”

Next a commenter falsely claimed that my colleague Maureen Dowd “said that the Republican Party is trying to repeal Woodstock.” It was a misrepresentation of a 1998 column she had written about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. What she actually wrote was:

“Since Watergate, there has been a pendulum of partisan revenge. And, right now, Republicans want their payback for Watergate, for Bork, for Iran-contra, even for Woodstock. Like Kenneth Starr, the Republicans are attempting to repeal the 1960s.”

But let’s not let facts slow us down. Santorum, predictably, deflected back to sex:

“Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. They prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom. All of the things are about sexual freedom, and they hate to be called on them. They try to somehow or other tie this to the founding fathers’ vision of liberty, which is bizarre. It’s ridiculous. That’s at the core of why you are attacked.”

The next question was: “Do you see any possibility for a party of Christian reform, or an influx of Christian ideas into this [Democratic] party?”

Santorum’s answer included what? That’s right: Sex!

While explaining what he saw as a shift in the Democratic Party away from “blue-collar working-class folks with traditional values” Santorum said:

“What changed was the ’60s. What changed was sex. What changed was the social and cultural issues that have huge amounts of money because if you look — I haven’t seen numbers on this, but I’m sure it’s true — if you go socioeconomic scale, the higher the income, the more socially liberal you are. The more you know you can buy your way out of the problems that sexual libertinism causes you. You have an abortion, well, I have the money to take care of it. If I want to live an extravagant life and get diseases, I can. ... You can always take care of everything. If you have money, you can get away with things that if you’re poor you can’t.”

The questions finally got around to asking about sex directly, much to Santorum’s delight, I’m sure. To one of those questions Santorum answered in part:

“Sex is a means. Evolution is a means. And the aim is a secular world. It’s a, in my opinion, a hedonistic, self-focused world that is, in my opinion, anti-American.”

Santorum may now cloak his current views in Catholic fundamentalism and Constitutional literalism, but, at their root, they are his reaction to, and revulsion for, the social-sexual liberation that began in the 1960s.

In fact, Santorum’s distaste for the sexual revolution of the 1960s leaks over into a deep dislike of everything that the 1960s represents. Santorum continued in the question-and-answer session:

“You’re a liberal or a conservative in America if you think the ’60s were a good thing or not. If the ’60s was a good thing, you’re left. If you think it was a bad thing, you’re right. And the confusing thing for a lot of people that gets a lot of Americans is, when they think of the ’60s, they don’t think of just the sexual revolution. But somehow or other — and they’ve been very, very, clever at doing this — they’ve been able to link, I think absolutely incorrectly, the sexual revolution with civil rights.”

Maybe that’s why he has such a dyspeptic reaction to the 1960 speech by John F. Kennedy, in which he said that “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.”

Santorum said that the speech made him want to throw up because it was an “an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960.”

Nothing could be more absurd. James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” and fourth president of the United States, wrote in 1822 that:

“Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.”

Santorum’s stances are not about our Constitution, but his. He views personal freedoms as a personal affront. His thinking exists in a pre-1960s era of aspirin-between-the-knees contraception and read-between-the-lines sexuality.

The kind of conservatism that Santorum represents has been described as a war on women, but I would rephrase that. It’s a war on sex beyond the confines of traditional marriage and strict heterosexuality in which women, particularly poor ones, and gays, particularly open ones, are likely to suffer the greatest casualties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/opinion/blow-santorum-and-the-sexual-revolution.html?hp=&pagewanted=print