Stupid Santorumisms

[crowmanyclouds]

@joebuck20

Personally I hope that Santorum does get the nomination. So that way, when he inevitably gets his ass handed to him by Obama, the Republicans can’t drag out the same bullshit argument that they did in 2008 after McCain lost about how if they only had a sufficiently conservative candidate, they would have won.

Of course, they could always wind up going full batshit next time around, but the upside of that is it would put them on even speedier route to irrelevancy.

[Lord John Whorfin
(Dr. Emilio Lizardo)]
Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy. We-a coming for you and-a you’ gold fringed flag next-a time!
[/LJW(DEL)]

CMC fnord!

[howye]

@joebuck20

Personally I hope that Santorum does get the nomination. So that way, when he inevitably gets his ass handed to him by Obama, the Republicans can’t drag out the same bullshit argument that they did in 2008 after McCain lost about how if they only had a sufficiently conservative candidate, they would have won.

Of course, they could always wind up going full batshit next time around, but the upside of that is it would put them on even speedier route to irrelevancy.

If they nominate Santorum that IS full batshit. Don’t kid yourself. Every decision made by a president Santorum would be made according to his very narrow and conservative religious beliefs. There would be no compromise and no moderation.

[Ann_Hedonia]

@Slithy_Tove

I agree: when the dickish homophobe isn’t just an anti-gay one-note Charlie, but is also against women’s reproductive rights, the issue goes deeper than Mr. Santorum’s prostate’s unacknowledged yearning for tender caress.

It’s not his homophobia alone that makes me questions his sexuality, it’s what seems to be his squeamish distaste for heterosexual sex.

[purplehorseshoe]

@anya_marie

We don’t need Satan when we have Rick Santorum.

Get thee behind me, s— oh, wait. Ew.

[kaylasdad99]

@kaylasdad99

I understand that the phrase “There you go again” has been used with reasonable success in past contests.

Frankly, I’m a little ambivalent, considering its provenance.

@ElvisL1ves

Reagan used the phrase to denigrate something *honest and serious *being said by a more-engaged opponent, to try to restore viewer focus back to his charming grin. It was not to point to the inanity of Mondale and what he said.

Yes, that’s why I’m ambivalent. Had the phrase entered the political landscape respectably and honestly, rather than the way Reagan did it, I’d be all in favor of President Obama using it. Unfortunately, the Reagan connection taints it some.

[kaylasdad99]

@Guinastasia

Santorum makes me want to throw up. The politician, that is.

Well, I hope the other kind at least makes you wrinkle your nose a little and reach for a washcloth…

[Euphonious_Polemic]

I’m not sure if this quote from Santorum has been posted here yet…

“The idea that the church should have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical of the objectives and vision of our country,”

Apparently said yesterday on ABC’s “This Week.”

I’m open to anyone wanting to defend his statement.

[Jenaroph]

Santorum doesn’t use those stupid teleprompters like Romney does.

“I never have to worry about what I say because I will say what’s on my heart. I might not say it the most articulate sometimes and I understand that, but I have no teleprompters. I answer questions,” Santorum told an audience at a nightclub here. “I answer questions from the public in front of cameras. I answer questions from the press every day. I don’t hide. I don’t hide from the public. I don’t have structured events where only my friends are in front of me to take questions.”

Right, and that’s how you end up saying things like “blah people.” How’s that working out for you?

Oh, hey. Looky. This was at CPAC, less than three weeks ago.

Still, Mr. Santorum, using a teleprompter for the high-stakes speech, gave a more focused speech than he typically does on the stump, when he often rambles at length through deep weeds of public policy.

Fuckin’ liar.

Another example just like all the other things he’s done himself but chides other people for doing. It’s OK if he goes to college, or uses teleprompters, or his wife has prenatal testing or considers ending a pregnancy to save her own life; because when THEY do it it’s only because it was really really important and they totally searched their own hearts and listened to God before acting; and when other people do it it’s because they were being selfish and godless and led astray. Besides, again, it was IMPORTANT.

[Alka_Seltzer]

@thelurkinghorror

Are you talking about the hairy, rotund, man-eating bear that is very protective of its cub? Or the one that lives in the forest and eats honey and berries?

The former. Though out of concerns for the bear’s diet, seating him between Optimus Prime and Megatron might be a better idea.

[armedmonkey]

@Alka_Seltzer

The former. Though out of concerns for the bear’s diet, seating him between Optimus Prime and Megatron might be a better idea.

Oh, I thought you meant this kind of bear

[thelurkinghorror]

That’s what I meant by the first one, not sure if it was too subtle.

[Voyager]

@kaylasdad99

Yes, that’s why I’m ambivalent. Had the phrase entered the political landscape respectably and honestly, rather than the way Reagan did it, I’d be all in favor of President Obama using it. Unfortunately, the Reagan connection taints it some.

Obama could say that he is closer to Reagan than Santorum. After all, Reagan raised taxes and wanted to save Social Security.

[Alka_Seltzer]

@thelurkinghorror

That’s what I meant by the first one, not sure if it was too subtle.

It’s confusing if you haven’t come across the term before, I clearly need to read up on my slang.

[Guinastasia]

@kaylasdad99

Well, I hope the other kind at least makes you wrinkle your nose a little and reach for a washcloth…

Well, duh. Although there’s not much difference between the two of them.

And of course Santorum’s afraid of people getting an education. He preys on peoples’ ignorance.

[Lamar_Mundane]

The cause of the Great Recession was gas prices. People couldn’t pay their mortgages because gas was too expensive. Not because they were sold ridiculous mortgages by people who knew they would default, not because Wall Street got the ratings agencies to vastly overrate the value of these mortgages, but because it cost $50 to fill your gas guzzler’s tank.

Lansing, Michigan (CNN) - Rick Santorum argued Monday that it was high gas prices, not dubious lending practices or complex Wall Street trades, which torpedoed the housing market in 2008 and brought on the current prolonged economic slump.

The Republican presidential candidate made the claim at a campaign event in Lansing, Michigan while accusing President Barack Obama of blocking the expansion of domestic energy production.

“We need to look at the situation with gas prices today,” Santorum said. “We went into a recession in 2008 because of gasoline prices. The bubble burst in housing because people couldn’t pay their mortgages because they were looking at $4 a gallon gasoline.”

[Fear_Itself]

That man must have had a traumatic head injury. Nothing but a brain stem on legs.

[Guinastasia]

@Fear_Itself

That man must have had a traumatic head injury. Nothing but a brain stem on legs.

He’s got santorum for brains.

[andros]

@Lamar_Mundane

but because it cost $50 to fill your gas guzzler’s tank.

Actually, he has a point here without realizing it.

Just pissing out numbers, but if average per capita gasoline use is around 400 gallons (rough guess from hitting a couple summary sites), then a household of four would crank through 1600 gallons a year. A one-dollar rise in prices gives us an extra $1600 annually, which is really not chump change.

Another handwave suggests that’s between one and two mortgage payments. Certainly enough to theoretically cause a default in a household that’s already balanced on the edge.

*And they were balanced on the fucking edge because of deregulated mortgage and financial markets, artificially cheap credit, and unrestricted predatory lending. *

Not to mention a culture of entitlement and a national obsession with the automobile. If our hypothetical family lived closer to where they work instead of the fucking burbs they wouldn’t be burning so fucking much gasoline. :smack:

[Biggirl]

@andros

Actually, he has a point here without realizing it.

Just pissing out numbers, but if average per capita gasoline use is around 400 gallons (rough guess from hitting a couple summary sites), then a household of four would crank through 1600 gallons a year. A one-dollar rise in prices gives us an extra $1600 annually, which is really not chump change.

Another handwave suggests that’s between one and two mortgage payments.

Or half a mortgage payment if you got a mortgage between 10 and 5 years ago.

[Askance]

@andros

Just pissing out numbers, but if average per capita gasoline use is around 400 gallons (rough guess from hitting a couple summary sites), then a household of four would crank through 1600 gallons a year. A one-dollar rise in prices gives us an extra $1600 annually, which is really not chump change.

This assumes that this family is utterly uncognizant of fiscal reality or theory, and uses exactly as much gas regardless of its price. Of course Chicago economic theory (as espoused by the right) demands that they are perfectly informed and rational consumers and so would moderate their consumption in ratio of the price increase, but .. erm … well … IT’S ALL OBAMA’s SOCIALIST FAULT!