Posted on 03/27/2012 5:18:11 PM PDT by presidio9
In Lewis Black’s 2006 comedy CD “The Carnegie Hall Performance” there is a track that is appropriately titled “Rick Santorum: Idiot.” It is amazing to think that in six years so little has changed.
Rick Santorum is still an idiot, but it’s worse now. It’s far worse. Because now he is a viable candidate for the highest office in the land and he’s finding support all across the country. Which makes me think that not only is Rick Santorum an idiot, but he simply shouldn’t exist.
This is not me calling for the assassination of a political candidate, far from it. I am of course a non-violent man, and I recognize every living person’s right to exist, I’m just saying that in the case of Rick Santorum’s existence, he simply shouldn’t.
Our country is the only one that could have produced a man like Rick Santorum and it’s a poor reflection on us. It’s not because of his religious fanaticism, lots of countries have fanatics. It’s because of his special schizophrenic brand of religious fanaticism.
Rick Santorum is constantly talking about our need to preserve freedom in this country, and then talking about all the immoral things that should be banned. He talks about the need for the free markets to be unshackled from big government and then tells us that the president isn’t doing enough to battle pornography, maybe one of the most profitable items on the free market, and in a perverse ironic kind of way, the very epitome of the freedom Rick Santorum claims to want to protect. The problem with Rick Santorum is that he genuinely believes that America should be a theocracy, whether consciously, or unconsciously, and then tries to explain to us how this is the freedom the founders intended.
Apparently, in Rick Santorum’s mind the founders fought a war, and created a Constitution so that we could all live by Rick Santorum’s specific ideas of morality.
In Iran and other Islamic countries that live under the weight of Sharia law, they have the intellectual integrity to not confuse their way of life with freedom. They view it quite differently, in fact. They see it as a glorious submission to the will of God, and they view freedom as dangerous. If Rick Santorum had this kind of honesty maybe he wouldn’t be so horrifying. No, actually, he’d be just as horrifying, but at least he wouldn’t be equally as irritating, to boot.
The biggest problem with Santorum is that he’s obsessed with sex: not his own sex, like any good pervert, but your sex, like a terrifying religious zealot. He wants to tell you when you can have sex, after marriage, who you can have sex with, your spouse and no one else, what people can have sex, heterosexuals, and that’s it, and what you can do if the sex has unintended consequences, no abortions, not ever!
But he doesn’t want you to take any precautions to prevent those consequences either, Oh yeah, no birth control. Even if you need it to save your life and not for contraception, which does occasionally happen. Actually he’s so obsessed with sex, it makes you wonder if he’s ever actually enjoyed it, because his litter of children and eternally frustrated looking wife definitely prove that he’s had, what I assume was, a very unsatisfying versions of it.
Rick Santorum will almost certainly never be president. Most likely he won’t even be the Republican nominee, but he will continue to exist and so will all of his supporters, and that should scare the heckout of everybody.
TMI dude... LOL
How’d that history rewriting early, attempt at Saul Alinsky tactics - work out?
There’s how to deal with Alinsky tactics. Right there in American history books.
Own them.
Yankee doodle dandy, it is then. :D
Sorry, loser. He exists, and so do I, and I have even more kids than he does. The future looks like us, not like you.
Rick Santorum actually believes in his religion and is willing to talk about it. One thing he has said is that he doesn’t believe his religion should be imposed on others.
That doesn’t mean, however, that his religion deviates from reality. One of the things that keeps religion alive is that it aligns with reality. Otherwise, people would reject it out of hand.
There are strong reasons that can be presented supporting the control of porn, prostitution, drugs, etc. If these behaviors were so obviously matters only of personal freedom, then arguments for controlling them would never have gotten off the ground.
And surprisingly, these arguments have won the day in many, many cultures (most?) throughout recorded history.
I notice, for example, that even today in cultures that permit prostitution that those countries all have laws requiring health checks for that kind of worker.
Wonder why? /sarc
Is this an Obamabot or a Romneybot?
Or for your benefit, I should know the unit.
This dumb-dumb and all purpose arrogant ignoramus goes to the school where I got my undergraduate degree and writes for the campus paper that is apparently the successor of the one I wrote for many decades ago at the height of the 1960s wave of nonsense. My opinions now are largely the same as they were then. Quinnipiac has changed a LOT.
Be nice to my Yankees. The son of Mariano Rivera, the greatest closer/reliever in the history of the universe is going to enroll at QU this fall. He is “the best that is, the best that ever was and the best that ever will be” (with apologies for ripping off language from The Natural). Just in case the younger Rivera, when taking time from his studies, his Pentecostal worship, and his baseball duties, may review this column of this idiot Mike Lewis, I have responded at my customary length in The Quad News. Whether they publish my response remains to be seen.
Gonna take a wild guess here and speculate that Mr. Lewis likes coming and going through the back door.
I could have gone all day without seeing that one, thanks.
Actually, "Yankee" is originally a coinage of Dutch privateers who sailed with New Englanders in the privateering adventures of the late 17th century (ending in 1712, when the British government forbade privateering).
Best-guess etymology is that "yankee" means a self-privileged, self-dealing, obnoxiously bossy and officious pr**k.
It was highly pejorative.
Actually, as a matter of fact -- yeah.
And a few of them, like John Adams, were quite explicit in pointing out that an American republic populated by wanton lusers would be a failing proposition, and that we'd need something completely different to get the job done. And presumably equipped with iron rods to correct people like Sparky here.
E.B. White’s definition:
To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.
I qualify on all counts except that I am not a Vermonter. (Pecan or blueberry pie for breakfast please ... with coffee!)
>>...Apparently, in Rick Santorum’s mind the founders fought a war, and created a Constitution so that we could all live by Rick Santorum’s specific ideas of morality...<<
And apparently, not a small number of Santorum’s supporters are supporting him because of that, among his other campaign positions.
I wonder without his strong opinions on morals (sexual or otherwise), where would Santorum be ranked at this point in the campaign: In the lead, back of the pack, or no change/about the same?
The word Yankee was around well before the Brits started calling them Yankee Doodles.
Dictionary.com says:
“1750–60, Americanism ; perhaps back formation from Dutch Jan Kees John Cheese, nickname (mistaken for plural) applied by the Dutch of colonial New York to English settlers in Connecticut.”
So, yes, insult originally intended, but only John Cheese.
Dictionary does suggest that “Doodle” may well refer to the male member.
Like many insults, what was originally intended as an insult became a word of pride to those insulted—like the words “Quaker” and “Shaker.” Or, more recently, Birther. Or, when the Brits spoke of Yanks during the Second World War, it was kind of an endearing insult.
Name 'em.
You are both correct that the term “Yankee” had been around for a while. However, the connotation of “yanking” and the pairing with “doodle” (which you correctly pointed out was already on the endless list of synonymns for the male member) was what made it stick with British soldiers in 1776.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.