Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2004 Presidential Candidate Calls for Santorum to Resign Senate Post
Guardian Unlimited UK ^ | April 23, 2003 | wire report

Posted on 04/23/2003 11:45:44 AM PDT by ewing

Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean on Wednesday for Senator Rick Santorum to resign his leadership post after the lawmaker compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery.

'Gay bashing is not a legitimate public policy discussion, it is immoral.

Rick Santorum's failure to recognize that attacking people because of who they are is morally wrong makes him unfit for a leadership position in the United States Senate.'

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: Pennsylvania; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: candidate; dean; homosexualagenda; resignation; santorum
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-215 next last
To: mabelkitty
Sorry, Mabel, Eaglebeak is gone. You'll have to content yourself with Luggy.
121 posted on 04/23/2003 1:31:05 PM PDT by JohnnyZ (What two adults do in the privacy of their home IS my business. I'm the one holding the camera!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
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!

122 posted on 04/23/2003 1:32:17 PM PDT by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
What am I saying?

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

Seems like a pretty ridiculous stance to me.

123 posted on 04/23/2003 1:33:05 PM PDT by JohnnyZ (What two adults do in the privacy of their home IS my business. I'm the one holding the camera!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
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.
124 posted on 04/23/2003 1:33:10 PM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eaglebeak
How indelicate of you!
125 posted on 04/23/2003 1:33:57 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
No more fun?
126 posted on 04/23/2003 1:35:24 PM PDT by MEG33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: ewing
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.

127 posted on 04/23/2003 1:35:42 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (God Bless the United States and her valiant allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEG33
No more fun?

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

128 posted on 04/23/2003 1:39:32 PM PDT by Mo1 (I'm a monthly Donor .. You can be one too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyZ
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.
129 posted on 04/23/2003 1:39:44 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: eaglebeak
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.

130 posted on 04/23/2003 1:40:30 PM PDT by Paulus Invictus (ax accountant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
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.

131 posted on 04/23/2003 1:40:41 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
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?

132 posted on 04/23/2003 1:41:05 PM PDT by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

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

He's fine on his own.
133 posted on 04/23/2003 1:42:42 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: chachacha
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.

134 posted on 04/23/2003 1:44:32 PM PDT by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
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.

135 posted on 04/23/2003 1:45:01 PM PDT by dirtboy (Tagline under construction, fines doubled for speeding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
"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."

136 posted on 04/23/2003 1:45:13 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: lugsoul
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?

137 posted on 04/23/2003 1:46:15 PM PDT by JohnnyZ (What two adults do in the privacy of their home IS my business. I'm the one holding the camera!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: chachacha
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."
138 posted on 04/23/2003 1:46:48 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
Oh! OK? Then stop posting and defending the opposing positions.Gees.
139 posted on 04/23/2003 1:48:10 PM PDT by chachacha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
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.
140 posted on 04/23/2003 1:49:44 PM PDT by lugsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-215 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson