Cool! Ricky (bestiality) Santorum to speak at Repugnant Convention!

[mumon]

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0032995.cfm

As Democrats continue to haggle over whether a pro-life speaker will be allowed on the podium at this week's convention, Republicans say those who value human life — at every stage of development — will definitely be on their agenda.

Pro-life U.S. Sens. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan., have been added to the roster of GOP speakers in the wake of controversy over the initial absence of pro-life voices. They will join pro-abortion Republicans like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the Republican National Convention next month.

"People who have been in the fight for a long time such as Senators Santorum and Senator Brownback . . . deserve recognition," said Tom McClusky, director of government affairs at the Family Research Council. "I believe the people on the floor, the delegates on the floor, would more like to hear them speak."



For once I agree with Tom McClusky- it would be good, though, if this time they give their speeches in the original German.

[dave29]

1. We need more babies to fight our wars

says Santorum

[Cyrano]

2. I'll bet you don't see Santorum and their other lunatics in prime time.

[Brotherjohn]

3. Oh PLEASE let Pat Buchanan speak about the "Culture War" again! Please?!

[fishface]

4. Ever Google up Santorum?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=santorum&spell=1

[mumon]

5. Only when I drink too much & get sick...

Then I generally google him right into the toilet.

[fishface]

8. You're missing something if you don't . hehehehehe

no text

[Brotherjohn]

6. HA! I guess he got his just desserts. (n/t)

[fishface]

11. Poetic justice or sweet irony?

You decide America! LMAO :evilgrin:

[seemslikeadream]

10. Google Image

Sen. Rick Santorum's comments on homosexuality in an AP interview

The Associated Press
Tuesday, April 22, 2003



SANTORUM: You have the problem within the church. Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it's in the privacy of your own home, this "right to privacy," then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it's private, as long as it's consensual, then don't be surprised what you get. You're going to get a lot of things that you're sending signals that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don't really care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don't be surprised that you get more of it.

AP: The right to privacy lifestyle?

SANTORUM: The right to privacy lifestyle.

AP: What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what we're talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We're not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We're talking about a basic homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine relationship as long as it's consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that's fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.

AP: Well, what would you do?

SANTORUM: What would I do with what?

AP: I mean, how would you remedy? What's the alternative?

SANTORUM: First off, I don't believe _

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.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.internetweekly.org/gop_cards/cartoon_rick_santorum_card.html&h=450&w=322&sz=28&tbnid=jXxX0alYzRAJ:&tbnh=122&tbnw=88&start=2&prev=/images%3Fq%3DRick%2BSantorum%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG

[luaneryder]

7. I am so sick of the terms

"pro-life" and "pro-abortion"! Can't they use pro-choice and anti-choice which it what the two sides come down to?

[redqueen]

9. Can anyone get on any of the pro-life boards (they have those, right?)

and lobby for these guys to be PRIME TIME?!

This is a serious, serious issue, after all.

[seemslikeadream]

12. Honest we're just friends

:hi:

[redqueen]

13. LMAO!

Thanks for posting that!

:hi:

[kentuck]

14. at the start or near the end of the convention ??

The nearer the end, the more significant the message, I think. It would show they give more weight to the right-wing message...??