When you google "Santorum"

[Claude_Remains]

@Bryan_Ekers

Well, after Santorum (capital letter) drops out of the primaries and loses national prominence, we’ll have to see if “santorum” (lower-case letter) has any staying power.

Or if it just, y’know, gets swept away.

Yeah, you’ve got a point there. The liquid in question will just go back to being known as “Spoop”.

[Bosstone]

@sh1bu1

How about curie, angstrom, ampere, volt, algorithm?

Man, Al Gore just wants to take credit for everything, doesn’t he?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Yeah, right. I know he invented the Internet, but there’s no way he invented mathematical procedures.

@Bosstone

Man, Al Gore just wants to take credit for everything, doesn’t he?

Longest time-delay ninja ever.

[FixMyIgnorance]

Rick Santorum made some extremely ignorant, disgusting comments. I don’t care if Savage’s method was “immature” or “petty” here if it helps keeps bigots out of office, depriving them of the power to suppress and discriminate.

[Steve_MB]

@Marley23

He did that in 2008, and I’m expecting him to do it this time, too. He’s not running for re-election and if he’s just in the race to make a point and to get people to talk about the issues he cares about, he has little reason to drop out. But by the time everybody else rallies around Romney it won’t matter very much what Paul is doing.

I think he’s in it to bring as many delegates as possible to bargain for having his issues presented at the convention and/or written into the platform.

[Bosstone]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Longest time-delay ninja ever.

Aw, damn. I looked and everything, too.

[JKellyMap]

Among the more linguistically-inclined posts in this thread – and the helpful input from a gay poster – there was mention of how the substance in question really doesn’t occur often, and so the word doesn’t fill a need – and that this makes Savage’s coinage a bit sillier than it might have been.
Well, now that the word has indeed entered the English lexicon (if only barely), perhaps it will undergo an organic expansion of its semantic space. Lots of words do this.
I propose that the extended sense refer to a mixture – frothy or not – which includes two out of the three ingredients. Just this morning, I changed my 1-year-old’s diaper, which was filled with a lovely purée of lubricant (diaper rash gel) and runny poop. Voila – santorum!

[Mr.Greenjeans]

From the WSJ:

Mr. Santorum hasn’t notched a win, or even a second-place finish, since his surprise, come-from-behind victory in Iowa at the beginning of January.

I can’t thing of a better way to describe Santorum: He’s the “come-from-behind” candidate!

[Mr.Greenjeans]

I also can’t think of a better way…

[CurtC]

@Mr.Greenjeans

I can’t thing of a better way to describe Santorum: He’s the “come-from-behind” candidate!

Did you not see the headline in the Philadelphia Inquirer after the Iowa primary?

Santorum surges from behind in Iowa

[David42]

@Marley23

I’d say Santorum is different from Quisling or sadist or chauvinist or Benedict Arnold in that it was created deliberately to insult someone rather than evolving as a comment on a person’s actions. But that doesn’t make it somehow “illegitimate.” I think we’ve all seen people insulted that way on the playground, and if you wanted to argue that Savage’s choice of tactics is immature, you’d be on pretty safe ground. To which I’d respond that what Santorum did was much worse.

It is also vastly different in that it describes the opposite of Santorum’s position or qualities. All the others became synonymous with a position or a quality that a person actually had or did.

[David42]

@davidm

Just to raise things to a new level… Savage recently said that “rick” should mean “remove with one’s tongue”. “Rick” is constructed from “remove” and “lick”.

This gives a whole new meaning to “Rick Santorum”.

Gotta admit that’s funny.

[Marley23]

@David42

It is also vastly different in that it describes the opposite of Santorum’s position or qualities. All the others became synonymous with a position or a quality that a person actually had or did.

That’s pretty much what I was saying. But I have no problem saying Santorum is a piece of shit, so maybe it works on that level.

[David42]

@JKellyMap

Among the more linguistically-inclined posts in this thread – and the helpful input from a gay poster – there was mention of how the substance in question really doesn’t occur often, and so the word doesn’t fill a need – and that this makes Savage’s coinage a bit sillier than it might have been.
Well, now that the word has indeed entered the English lexicon (if only barely), perhaps it will undergo an organic expansion of its semantic space. Lots of words do this.
I propose that the extended sense refer to a mixture – frothy or not – which includes two out of the three ingredients. Just this morning, I changed my 1-year-old’s diaper, which was filled with a lovely purée of lubricant (diaper rash gel) and runny poop. Voila – santorum!

a little too close for comfort considering the original definition.

[David42]

@Marley23

That’s pretty much what I was saying. But I have no problem saying Santorum is a piece of shit, so maybe it works on that level.

But then you’re trending toward a slightly different “definition” since the other is a mix and only produced by one thing, anal sex.

I think Santorum (the man) is shit too.

[Ca3799]

@What_the

For the record, this is what I mis-remembered.

I’m not sure of the veracity of that article.

Right off the bat, it links to Rasmussen to support some stats, then links to an old Politico story which is gone now, and then states that if you Google “Obamacare” or the like, that Google leads you to teh government health and Human Services website and that they “us(e) taxpayers’ money to alter the results of search engines and to control the flow of information is disturbing on multiple levels.”

Seems like Bs to me.

[davidm]

@Ca3799

I’m not sure of the veracity of that article.

Right off the bat, it links to Rasmussen to support some stats, then links to an old Politico story which is gone now, and then states that if you Google “Obamacare” or the like, that Google leads you to teh government health and Human Services website and that they “us(e) taxpayers’ money to alter the results of search engines and to control the flow of information is disturbing on multiple levels.”

Seems like Bs to me.

If they are spending money to do that, they’re wasting it. If I Google “obamacare” the Health and Human Services website is not even on the first page of results. In fact, there are no government websites of any kind on the first page. The first result is the Wikipedia page for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Wikipedia being the first result is extremely common). This is followed by various sites, which appear to be mostly conservative anti-PPACA sites.

[kaylasdad99]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Indeed: for a legitimate insult, you must find an snark-vein on a distant mountain and carve a treacherous path through the rock to where the vitriol runs pure. You must then harness the vitriol and refine it through a process entirely too complex to describe here until you’ve got an insult.

@Kobal2

This is an enormous Chrysoberyl insult. All craftsmanship is of the highest quality. It is studded with Adamantine, decorated with Adamantine and Chrysoberyl and encircled with bands of elephant bones. This object menaces with spikes of hoary marmot bones.

On the item is an image of a man in basalt. The man is felching a goat. The artwork relates to the coining of the word “Santorum” by Dan Savage in mid spring 2003.
On the item is an image of a frothy mixture of semen and sexual lubricant.

Available From the Franklin Mint in a limited edition of five million individually numbered hand-crafted insults, and yours for five easy payments of $29.95.

But wait! Act now, and we’ll double your order! Just pay separate shipping and handling charges.

[What_the]

@davidm

If they are spending money to do that, they’re wasting it. If I Google “obamacare” the Health and Human Services website is not even on the first page of results. In fact, there are no government websites of any kind on the first page. The first result is the Wikipedia page for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Wikipedia being the first result is extremely common). This is followed by various sites, which appear to be mostly conservative anti-PPACA sites.

You probably have to keep shelling out the dough to keep getting the results you want.