2004 Presidential Candidate Calls for Santorum to Resign Senate Post

Guardian Unlimited UK ^ | April 23, 2003 | wire report

[JohnnyZ]

Sorry, Mabel, Eaglebeak is gone. You'll have to content yourself with Luggy.

[chachacha]

Then what are we all talking about protecting Rick From?

SANTA CLAUS?

I agree with you but, isn't the left doing what they do best? Twist the truth and control the debate in public opinion while we set around and talk leagal schmeegal crap like are now!

[JohnnyZ]

What am I saying?

You are saying that gays have a constitutional right to "pack".

Seems like a pretty ridiculous stance to me.

[cynicom]

In past years, I have voted for Santorum. If bush interferes in this one like he did with Lott, he deserves to lose in 04. Some how I think Bush has learned a lesson, plus Santorum is not another Lott.

[MEG33]

How indelicate of you!

[MEG33]

No more fun?

[Mr. Silverback]

That's funny. If Santorum is a gay-basher, so is the SCOTUS--Their conclusion when they ruled that states have the right to pass sodomy laws was almost exactly what Santorum said.

You notice the headline calls Dean "2004 Presidential Candidate?" That's because if the headline said "Howard Dean Calls for Santorum to Resign Senate Post," the most common reaction would be total indifference. Only serious political junkies know or care what Dean says at this point.

Lastly, let's remember that this wonderful arbitor of what is "legitimate public discussion" told George Will back in Febraury that if we re-elect Dubya little girls will no longer be able to go to school in this country.

[Mo1]

No more fun?

Seems that way .. but I'm sure he/she will be back under a new identity ..

[lugsoul]

Learn to read, JohnnyZ. I am saying that EVERYONE has a constitutional right to pack with an adult in private - or, more specifically, that the Constitution prohibits giving some people the right to pack and denying it to others. You may call that ridiculous, but you can't refute it.

[Paulus Invictus]

Please don't vomit here! Santorum did not say the word "gay."

Oh, and how about the Felon? He not only committed immoral acts in the WH, he and his paramour discussed them at length during numerous porno phone calls. The whole sordid affair became public but the RATs in the Senate gave him a pass.

[mabelkitty]

Re-read my post.

On a personal level, I wish sex acts had never been allowed to enter the legal record. I don't care what you do, but if you tell me, then I have the option of casting judgement on it (and I most certainly will).

There are crimes against animals and children already on the books that don't need to be parsed by sex acts. Each law that is more clearly defined presents more and more options to skirt around it.

What you do in your bedroom is your business. Trying to bring that culture mainstream is my business.

[chachacha]

Because you don't want to admit that you believe it is wrong for gays and okay for heterosexuals, and you know you can't support that position legally.

Here's the end of the story.

Heterosexuals further the continuation of civilization. Any sex act they do has a better chance that in the end it will result in a birth of another Human being yes, and even another gay pervert!

END OF STORY?

[mabelkitty]

Actually, I never put forth the idea that he needed protecting. Sheesh!

He's fine on his own.

[mabelkitty]

No.

I don't like government in my home.

If they are going to be in my home, I am going to make sure it is clean. Do I have a Constitutional right to have a dirty house? No. Having a dirty house only makes the government stop over more often.

[dirtboy]

I am saying that EVERYONE has a constitutional right to pack with an adult in private

No, they don't. That under the 10th should be left to the states, the way alcohol sale and use was prior to and after Prohibition.

[lugsoul]

"What you do in your bedroom is your business. Trying to bring that culture mainstream is my business."

Your words. Are you or are you not saying that "trying to bring that culture mainstream" gives government the right to make that culture ILLEGAL, while quietly, discreetly keeping it out of the "mainstream" means it can stay legal?

My question: "Why does the legality of inserting a penis into an anus depend on whose anus it is?"

Your answer: "Because one wants Federal Funding to teach it in schools, and the other is appropriately suspected but never discussed."

[JohnnyZ]

I am saying that EVERYONE has a constitutional right to pack with an adult in private - or, more specifically, that the Constitution prohibits giving some people the right to pack and denying it to others.

So you support the constitutionality of laws regulating entrances to male and female "suitcases" but not just to male suitcases? And where does the constitution say this again?

[lugsoul]

So - you admit you want selectively applicable laws. Why so reluctant? If that's your position, defend it. Just don't claim it is "conservative."

[chachacha]

Oh! OK? Then stop posting and defending the opposing positions.Gees.

[lugsoul]

You damn sure do have a right to a dirty home. Where did all these "conservatives" come from, who believe that you only have specifically enumerated rights? Your rights DON'T come from government! The Constitution is not an exhaustive listing of all of your rights. You should look at the obverse: if the government doesn't have a Constitutional basis for infringing on a right, then that right is unfettered. Show me where the Constitution says that the U.S. Government can bring its persuasive power to bear because you have a dirty house.