Among the Republican primary and caucus electorate these days? Not so much, I think.
Problem? Cite that there was a problem?
I was just referring to GreasyJack’s quote that
(Emphasis mine.)
Weirdly, when I did a Google search about an hour ago, the spreadingsantorum.com webpage wasn’t on the first two pages, but now it’s the third result and the Wikipedia article is the second one.
It’s not even especially novel. For instance, I always think of naughty bits when I hear the names Rehnquist and Whizzer White.
To elaborate a little, usually Google is loathe to actually meddle with results, but when people manipulate the system to bring irrelevant results up (a “Google bomb”), they will sometimes try to tweak the search algorithim to prevent whatever particular method the bombers used. Perhaps the most famous Google bomb was when “abject failure” used to bring up George W’s website. With the santorum situation, they argued that it wasn’t a true Google bomb because it was merely a new, but equally legitimate, definition for the search term and so Google let it be.
But a month ago or so the spreading santorum site precipitously dropped in results, so there is some speculation that Google might have finally caved to the pressure from the Santorum campaign and monkeyed with the results. Most likely the drop coincided with an algorithim change (in addition to campaign buzz), but whether that algorithim change was specifically tailored to address the santorum issue or if it just coincidentally had that effect is unclear.
There are plenty of Republicans who don’t share Santorum’s more offensive views.
We’re all adults here (except some of us aren’t, but whatevs.) Let’s all stop beating around the bush. The definition for the word “santorum” (lower case s) is “the frothy mixture of fecal matter and lube that is sometimes the result of anal sex.”
It’s funny, but it’s not really meant to be a joke. It’s meant to dog a reprehensible human being for saying reprehensible things, and it’s also meant to name a concept that needed a name. The second part is legit – I don’t travel in the circles in which I need to refer to santorum with any regularity, but it’s still useful that it has a name.
More recently (and more humorously), BTW, as Santorum has continued his hateful rhetoric, Savage has also redefined the word “rick” to mean “to remove something with your tongue,” making the sentence “rick santorum” one of the dirtiest in the English language.
–Cliffy
Didn’t Savage also come up with derogatory definitions for a bunch of other prominent politicians’ names at the same time? I wonder why Santorum is the only one that’s lasted.
No.
Considering that one of the “reprehensible things” he said was comparing homosexuality to bestiality, that’s quite the turn of phrase. :dubious:
Well, I am glad you provided the link. Given the context of the thread, my first thought was that that must have something to do with Garry Glitter.:eek:
It’s as futile for Santorum and his supporters to complain about this as it would be for gays to complain about the altered sense of the word gay among the young. If people find the altered sense of a term useful then it will survive, otherwise it will lapse into obsolescence.
Huh, I seem to recall one for Ashcroft in particular, after the business with the bare-breasted statue of Justice. Maybe that came from someone other than Savage.
I don’t know. What was it Rick Santorum said? I can’t remember, and I follow politics closely. “Santorum is bigoted against gay people” is not the underlying message of the immature attacks, it’s the justification for them. And that’s fine - if people want to make immature jokes it doesn’t really bother me. I imagine if conservatives were making similarly puerile jokes about liberal figures the same people who find “Santorum” funny might not be so enthralled, but I wouldn’t mind that either. What annoys me is that so many comedians and mainstream liberals have taken it up. It’s not funny! It’s just being annoying to someone you disagree with.
I’m all on board with tasteless political humor. But glitter-bombing isn’t funny. There’s nothing funny about it, and there’s no message to it. It’s just being annoying to people you disagree with.
He said something about “I don’t believe man-on-man sex is right, just like man on boy or man on dog is not right.”
Equating homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality is a tacky old tired misleading argument, sort of like calling someone commie or pinko or (gasp!) liberal. The comment from someone who aspires to lead the greatest country in the world, deserves more than a simple round of condemnation at the time. The implied final solution - gays should simply restrain themselves from having sex, just like pedophiles or bestialists(?) because it is “bad”, means that this person has missed almost a half-century of evolution of human rights and civil rights, throughly misunderstands the cause of homosexuality, and subscribes to the idea that forbidding consenting adults from engaging in certain acts in private is a legitimate state endeavour. This last is what irks me the most - your country and mine have seen a resurgence of the idea “there oughta be a law” mentality; whatever is offensive to the persons in power should be outlawed, regardless of how restrictive or offensive the concept is.
In the long run, you get the reputation you deserve. If a significant number feel he deserves to be equated with contaminated frothy lube, then history will record it as such.
It’s a simple and concise word that is used by the people who need that word.
To general Hooker I’ll add the name of Captain Charles Boycott.
"If the Supreme Court says that you have a 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
This is Rick Santorum discussing anti-sodomy laws in 2003, made Dan Savage a little mad
search phrases that lead to this thread
Actually, none of those terms lead to this thread. I’m not sure of your motive, but you should quit while ahead or even.
While this isn’t a warning, it’s a strong admonition to avoid posting crap.
samclem, moderator.