POL Rick Santorum Has a Problem

Sensitive persons should read no further.

Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem
Why Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum can't beat his Google troubles.
— By Stephanie Mencimer

September/October 2010 Issue

Rick Santorum would very much like to be president. For the past few years, he has been diligently appearing at the sorts of conservative events—the Values Voters Summit, the Conservative Political Action Conference—where aspiring Republican candidates are expected to show up. But before he starts printing "Santorum 2012" bumper stickers, there's one issue the former GOP senator and his strategists need to address. You see, Santorum has what you might call a Google problem. For voters who decide to look him up online, one of the top three search results is usually the site SpreadingSantorum.com, which explains that Santorum's last name is a sexual neologism for "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

Santorum's problem got its start back in 2003, when the then-senator from Pennsylvania compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia, saying the "definition of marriage" has never included "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." The ensuing controversy prompted syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage, who's gay, to start a contest, soliciting reader suggestions for slang terms to "memorialize the scandal." The winner came up with the "frothy mixture" idea, Savage launched a website, and a meme was born. Even though mainstream news outlets would never link to it, Savage's site rose in the Google rankings, thanks in part to bloggers who posted Santorum-related news on the site or linked to it from their blogs. Eventually it eclipsed Santorum's own campaign site in search results; some observers even suggested it may have contributed to Santorum's crushing 18-point defeat in his 2006 campaign against Bob Casey.

Savage says his site hasn't been updated for years, yet it remains entrenched in the Google rankings. Not even Santorum's ascent as a Fox News contributor or his early campaign swings through the key primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire have managed to bury it. With Google results like this, what's an aspiring presidential candidate to do?

I wanted to ask Santorum whether he had a strategy for scrubbing his Web presence, but he didn't return my calls. So instead, I asked a few experts. "This is an unusual problem," says Michael Fertik, CEO of ReputationDefender, which specializes in helping individuals maintain a positive Web presence. "It's devastating. This is one of the more creative and salient Google issues I've ever seen."

Fertik, who points out that he is not a supporter of the former senator, notes that more than anything, Santorum needs to act quickly. Once the campaign starts to make headlines again, an increase in search traffic will likely help maintain Savage's high spot in the rankings: "It's going to be very hard to move."

To at least make a dent, Santorum could try a concerted push to generate links to his domain on prominent sites and blogs, ginning its Google ranking; Mark Skidmore, an expert in search-engine marketing at the online strategy firm Blue State Digital, says Santorum should also consider buying paid search results for his name. He says the Obama campaign successfully used this strategy to help bury sites that claimed Obama was a Muslim or not an American citizen. But like Fertik, Skidmore thinks Santorum faces an uphill battle, in part because Savage's site has been up for so long—with more than 13,000 inbound links, compared with only 5,000 for Santorum's own site, America's Foundation. "He's staring at a very big deficit," Skidmore observes.

That deficit might grow even bigger soon. "I've sort of been in denial about the fact that Rick Santorum is going to run for president," Savage says. "But now I'm going to have to sic my flying monkeys on him"—in other words, mobilize bloggers to start posting and linking to his site again.

Savage has not forgiven Santorum for his seven-year-old comments: "Rick would have prevented me and my partner from being able to adopt my son," he points out. But Savage does have a deal for the politician. "If Rick Santorum wants to make a $5 million donation to [the gay marriage group] Freedom to Marry, I will take it down. Interest starts accruing now." Santorum may want to consider Savage's offer. Otherwise, he's kinda screwed.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/rick-santorum-google-problem-dan-savage

In other words, Savage is blackmailing Santorum for refusing to support "gay marriage". Big shock there. Toleration is not enough. You. Must. Approve.

Santorum is a traditionalist and a Catholic to boot, so he's a fair target.

FREEBIRD said:

In other words, Savage is blackmailing Santorum for refusing to support "gay marriage". Big shock there. Toleration is not enough. You. Must. Approve.

Click to expand...

Please do not tell me that even you consider Santorum's earlier remarks "tolerant".

.

Liberals are the biggest hipocrits and most intolerant people on the face of the earth.

How disgusting that this is even out there.

Are there any kind, mature liberals who show human decency to others besides those who agree with them and animals who they dont' perceive as judging them?

This is just sick.

To at least make a dent, Santorum could try a concerted push to generate links to his domain on prominent sites and blogs, ginning its Google ranking; Mark Skidmore, an expert in search-engine marketing at the online strategy firm Blue State Digital, says Santorum should also consider buying paid search results for his name. He says the Obama campaign successfully used this strategy to help bury sites that claimed Obama was a Muslim or not an American citizen.

'Nuf said....

Dennis Olson said:

To at least make a dent, Santorum could try a concerted push to generate links to his domain on prominent sites and blogs, ginning its Google ranking; Mark Skidmore, an expert in search-engine marketing at the online strategy firm Blue State Digital, says Santorum should also consider buying paid search results for his name. He says the Obama campaign successfully used this strategy to help bury sites that claimed Obama was a Muslim or not an American citizen.

'Nuf said....

Click to expand...

Go figure Dennis----they must think we are suffering from the same condition that they appear to be suffering from--I believe it is called "rectal/cranial inversion"------

Uhhmmm... said:

Please do not tell me that even you consider Santorum's earlier remarks "tolerant".

.

Click to expand...

The only way you can be tolerant, as you see it, is too keep your mouth shut and never express your views?

No, tolerance means you aren't actively throwing them in jail for perversion, which is what used to happen, and IMHO should still be happening...

Uhhmmm... said:

Please do not tell me that even you consider Santorum's earlier remarks "tolerant".

.

Click to expand...

tolerant of what? ..."the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."???

Dan Savage is proud of that? Gee, his house must smell just peachy.

Just by making this look like "news" the AP is continuing the long established traditions of defaming and mocking those they hate,, but they are immune to prosecution via the first amendment. Look at the release they put out mocking Palin and her use of the Non-word "refudiate".

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100907/D9I3CF501.html
Non-word `refudiate' gets most online searches
Email this Story

Sep 7, 7:18 PM (ET)

By STEPHANIE REITZ


SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) - Merriam-Webster's "Word of the Summer" is not even a word. That's something no one can "refudiate."

Sarah Palin's attempt to splice "refute" and "repudiate" on a news show and in a Twitter message in July led to more searches on the publisher's online dictionary during the summer than most real words did. But don't expect all the interest in "refudiate" to lead to an actual dictionary entry.

The former Alaska governor has laughed off criticisms about her pseudo-word, noting that Shakespeare also coined new words.

'Refute' and 'repudiate' do have similar meanings. Refute means to prove something wrong or deny its truth or accuracy. Repudiate means to refuse any connection with something or reject it as untrue or unjust.

"I think people immediately knew what she was trying to say because the words 'refute' and 'repudiate' were also being looked up very, very frequently," said John Morse, Merriam-Webster's president and publisher.

"It's an interesting blend, but no, 'refudiate' is not a real word," he said.

But that could someday change. Many of today's accepted words once were considered strange hybrids, too, including contraption (contrivance plus trap and invention) and splatter (splash and spatter).

Massachusetts-based Merriam-Webster started tracking trends on what news-driven words were looked up most frequently after Princess Diana's death. That's when its editors noticed a spike in online searches for certain words associated with that event, such as paparazzi (aggressive photographers focusing on celebrities) and cortege (a funeral procession).

It's now able to track all searches on its website, naming the top trend words of each year and an annual compilation of "new words" accepted into the dictionary, such as "blog" and "staycation."

"Refudiate" is joined on this summer's list of top words by "inception" and "despicable," for which online searches jumped immediately as movies were released with those words in the titles. Some other often-searched words included "moratorium,""austerity,""opulent" and "doppelganger."

"Frugal" also made the list, reflecting what Merriam-Webster editor at large Peter Sokolowski described as "a word and sentiment of the moment for the country."

Some perennial puzzlers like "irony" and the bedeviling duo of "affect" and "effect" remained among Merriam-Webster's most-often searched words, though, and its editors don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Palin wasn't the first to blend two words with a similar meaning into one. Others have worked their way into the dictionary over time, such as "bold" and "audacious" blending to become "bodacious" or "guess" and "estimate" becoming "guesstimate."

Jonathan Bobaljik, a linguistics professor at the University of Connecticut, said a term's transition from slang to acceptance as a word isn't a clear-cut process.

For instance, people with something in common - such as Palin supporters - might use a particular term to signal their affinity even if they know it's not considered proper English.

"If enough people decide through popular consent that they're going to use it, then it may eventually become a word," Bobaljik said.

Indeed, Morse said lexicographers have told the Merriam-Webster editors they're seeing more use of "refudiate," though always by people who know the story behind it.

But it remains to be seen whether "refudiate" will become accepted as a real word.

"Will 'refudiate' get in the dictionary? Time will tell," Morse said. "Lexicographers are not good fortune tellers, so even if I had a theory, that wouldn't make it true."

45nut said:

Just by making this look like "news" the AP is continuing the long established traditions of defaming and mocking those they hate,, but they are immune to prosecution via the first amendment. Look at the release they put out mocking Palin and her use of the Non-word "refudiate".

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100907/D9I3CF501.html
Non-word `refudiate' gets most online searches
Email this Story

Sep 7, 7:18 PM (ET)

By STEPHANIE REITZ


SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) - Merriam-Webster's "Word of the Summer" is not even a word. That's something no one can "refudiate."

Sarah Palin's attempt to splice "refute" and "repudiate" on a news show and in a Twitter message in July led to more searches on the publisher's online dictionary during the summer than most real words did. But don't expect all the interest in "refudiate" to lead to an actual dictionary entry.

The former Alaska governor has laughed off criticisms about her pseudo-word, noting that Shakespeare also coined new words.

'Refute' and 'repudiate' do have similar meanings. Refute means to prove something wrong or deny its truth or accuracy. Repudiate means to refuse any connection with something or reject it as untrue or unjust.

"I think people immediately knew what she was trying to say because the words 'refute' and 'repudiate' were also being looked up very, very frequently," said John Morse, Merriam-Webster's president and publisher.

"It's an interesting blend, but no, 'refudiate' is not a real word," he said.

But that could someday change. Many of today's accepted words once were considered strange hybrids, too, including contraption (contrivance plus trap and invention) and splatter (splash and spatter).

Massachusetts-based Merriam-Webster started tracking trends on what news-driven words were looked up most frequently after Princess Diana's death. That's when its editors noticed a spike in online searches for certain words associated with that event, such as paparazzi (aggressive photographers focusing on celebrities) and cortege (a funeral procession).

It's now able to track all searches on its website, naming the top trend words of each year and an annual compilation of "new words" accepted into the dictionary, such as "blog" and "staycation."

"Refudiate" is joined on this summer's list of top words by "inception" and "despicable," for which online searches jumped immediately as movies were released with those words in the titles. Some other often-searched words included "moratorium,""austerity,""opulent" and "doppelganger."

"Frugal" also made the list, reflecting what Merriam-Webster editor at large Peter Sokolowski described as "a word and sentiment of the moment for the country."

Some perennial puzzlers like "irony" and the bedeviling duo of "affect" and "effect" remained among Merriam-Webster's most-often searched words, though, and its editors don't expect that to change anytime soon.

Palin wasn't the first to blend two words with a similar meaning into one. Others have worked their way into the dictionary over time, such as "bold" and "audacious" blending to become "bodacious" or "guess" and "estimate" becoming "guesstimate."

Jonathan Bobaljik, a linguistics professor at the University of Connecticut, said a term's transition from slang to acceptance as a word isn't a clear-cut process.

For instance, people with something in common - such as Palin supporters - might use a particular term to signal their affinity even if they know it's not considered proper English.

"If enough people decide through popular consent that they're going to use it, then it may eventually become a word," Bobaljik said.

Indeed, Morse said lexicographers have told the Merriam-Webster editors they're seeing more use of "refudiate," though always by people who know the story behind it.

But it remains to be seen whether "refudiate" will become accepted as a real word.

"Will 'refudiate' get in the dictionary? Time will tell," Morse said. "Lexicographers are not good fortune tellers, so even if I had a theory, that wouldn't make it true."

Click to expand...

Intersting article. I can think of many words that have been morphed by the left to be 'words.'

Words such as Islamaphobia and conversating are just 2 of many.

Mother Jones is an example of "liberal media". This is why I question references to mainstream media as "liberal".

I knew that undead would be interested in the details of gay male sex, he's pretty constant about that. Most of the rest of us would rather not think about that kind of thing.

To me, the interesting thing about the article is the power of an utterance by someone taking on a life of it's own in cyberspace. The Mother Jones article is liberal reporting; their agenda is to make Santorum look like a hapless boob. The AP story referenced by Emily, above, is mainstream. If anything, it's friendly to Sarah Palin and her novel word usage. Anytime a prominent figure embarrassingly misuses the english language, it may be cause for comment. That holds whether it's Palin and "Refudiate" or Barack Obama and his pronunciation of Marine Corps as Marine "corpse". If it keeps happening it will affect the individual's future prospects. "Refudiate" may well have a chance to become part of the english language. I think "Marine corpse" probably not.

FarmerJohn said:

Mother Jones is an example of "liberal media". This is why I question references to mainstream media as "liberal".

I knew that undead would be interested in the details of gay male sex, he's pretty constant about that. Most of the rest of us would rather not think about that kind of thing.

To me, the interesting thing about the article is the power of an utterance by someone taking on a life of it's own in cyberspace. The Mother Jones article is liberal reporting; their agenda is to make Santorum look like a hapless boob. The AP story referenced by Emily, above, is mainstream. If anything, it's friendly to Sarah Palin and her novel word usage. Anytime a prominent figure embarrassingly misuses the english language, it may be cause for comment. That holds whether it's Palin and "Refudiate" or Barack Obama and his pronunciation of Marine Corps as Marine "corpse". If it keeps happening it will affect the individual's future prospects. "Refudiate" may well have a chance to become part of the english language. I think "Marine corpse" probably not.

Click to expand...

AP friendly to Palin? I guess that depends on your definition of friendly.
If it means not openly hostile like most of the rest of the media then - okay but they are hardly 'friendly.'

As for the Santorum article - it doesn't make Santorum look like anything but makes the left look just as intolerant and mean as they try to paint the right as being. It is hypocritical at best, downright disgusting and sadly more typical of the wave of the country and 'Hollywood' elitism taking this country to the gutter at breakneck speed - at worst.

I wonder if the liberals at Google aren't "cookin' the books err... algorithms" so that searches on conservatives bring up "unflattering" results first. It's hard to beat a stacked deck in a crooked game.

Libs see their boy Obama getting bitch-slapped around as the incompetent socialist dork he is, and they have is to dig up some weird off-hand crap that's got nothing to do with nothing (Rick Santorum??? gimme a break), other than to point out that there are plenty of left-wing editors who like to play proctologist on each other and then write about it.


FarmerJohn, it's the lefties who seem fixated on their bowel systems, as evidenced by their use of it in their writings. I would not be surprised if Dan Savage is not the author of the child molestation guide referenced on another thread.

as soon as I read the thread title I knew what "santorums" problem was! that was the funniest modern marvel I've ever had the chance to witness/ be a part of. Screw santorum and all the gay bashing closet homo evangelists out there. Dan savage is THE most talented, blunt, honest sex/ life advice columnist who ever lived. What a hoot. Santorum is politically dead. tread lightly, and talk softly you flap-gummed son of a hor. Might wanna pick your battles a little more wisely. start with things that matter like, the deficit, the fed reserve, run away government, and global impovershment/ slavery/ genocide/ injustice/ and war.

deleted

Emily said:

AP friendly to Palin? I guess that depends on your definition of friendly.
If it means not openly hostile like most of the rest of the media then - okay but they are hardly 'friendly.'

Click to expand...

First apologies to all for thread drift, but...

AP's respectful treatment of Palin's new word, to the extent that they are reporting that it's finding acceptance in the general culture is not simply neutral, it's positive.

Do you consider any reference to Palin's use of a word not previously found in the english language to be necessarily hostile? If so, I suggest that you are being excessively thin-skinned.

When mainstream media repeated Obama's use "corpse" for "corps" they were not being unfair to Obama, they were being accurate. Why should treatment of Sarah Palin by the media be any different?

Thought that slick willy & his minions put a dismissive end to such issues since they're "all about sex".

FarmerJohn said:

Mother Jones is an example of "liberal media". This is why I question references to mainstream media as "liberal".

Click to expand...

Mother Jones, like it's comrade "The Nation", is an example of the far, far left media. The lamestream media is merely liberal. Both are pushing for essentially the same ideological objectives, its just that the Lenin and Stalin wannabees at MJ and TN are just more open about it.

FarmerJohn said:

First apologies to all for thread drift, but...
When mainstream media repeated Obama's use "corpse" for "corps" they were not being unfair to Obama, they were being accurate. Why should treatment of Sarah Palin by the media be any different?

Click to expand...

Remember, reality has a well-known liberal bias.

So, we should be tolerant of perversion? I think Santorum was calling it as he see's it. Folks are free to disagree. Indeed, there are folks who draw the perversion line farther out, but his point is well taken. Where is that line?

Marriage is, and always should be, a male/female relationship. The Fed or States may call for civil unions, etc. I have no issue with that. However, it is not marriage. I do not take issue with what consenting adults might do in private, however, tolerance is not acceptance. Tolerance is not saying "Well it is ok".

Tolerance is understanding that someone might think or act differently than you, but you are still free to judge the behavior and decide if it is acceptable or not.

I understand that same sex attraction happens. I also believe that it is not what I think to be an appropriate accommodation to what may indeed be fundamentally an adjustment issue. Sex feels good. What and where we do with our sexuality is a choice.

Mind you, I do know some long term same sex couples who would appear to be well adjusted. I just have my doubts as to the cultural advisability of that manner of living.

The Bible is pretty clear about homosexual behavior. However, The Bible is not a manual on human sexuality. It reflects a time when propagation was a serious problem. The Bible does not appear to condone same sex activity, yet is clear about God's unconditional love and mercy.

/rambling off

Uhhmmm... said:

Please do not tell me that even you consider Santorum's earlier remarks "tolerant".

.

Click to expand...

The worst insult you could possibly throw my way would be to call me tolerant. It's tolerance that has got us in the mess we find ourselves.

BadMedicine said:

as soon as I read the thread title I knew what "santorums" problem was! that was the funniest modern marvel I've ever had the chance to witness/ be a part of. Screw santorum and all the gay bashing closet homo evangelists out there. Dan savage is THE most talented, blunt, honest sex/ life advice columnist who ever lived. What a hoot. Santorum is politically dead. tread lightly, and talk softly you flap-gummed son of a hor. Might wanna pick your battles a little more wisely. start with things that matter like, the deficit, the fed reserve, run away government, and global impovershment/ slavery/ genocide/ injustice/ and war.

Click to expand...

Pathetic, just pathetic.

homepark said:

So, we should be tolerant of perversion? I think Santorum was calling it as he see's it. Folks are free to disagree. Indeed, there are folks who draw the perversion line farther out, but his point is well taken. Where is that line?

Marriage is, and always should be, a male/female relationship. The Fed or States may call for civil unions, etc. I have no issue with that. However, it is not marriage. I do not take issue with what consenting adults might do in private, however, tolerance is not acceptance. Tolerance is not saying "Well it is ok".

Tolerance is understanding that someone might think or act differently than you, but you are still free to judge the behavior and decide if it is acceptable or not.

I understand that same sex attraction happens. I also believe that it is not what I think to be an appropriate accommodation to what may indeed be fundamentally an adjustment issue. Sex feels good. What and where we do with our sexuality is a choice.

Mind you, I do know some long term same sex couples who would appear to be well adjusted. I just have my doubts as to the cultural advisability of that manner of living.

The Bible is pretty clear about homosexual behavior. However, The Bible is not a manual on human sexuality. It reflects a time when propagation was a serious problem. The Bible does not appear to condone same sex activity, yet is clear about God's unconditional love and mercy.

/rambling off

Click to expand...

Be careful or you will draw on the wrath of the 'tolerant' left and you will find yourself with their form of justice - disgustingly maligning you.

The only thing the left are tolerant of are those who agree with them.
Everyone who disagrees with them are a target of the most vile and disgusting attacks that don't even pass as human.

Longbow said:

Pathetic, just pathetic.

Click to expand...

Please elaborate.

BadMedicine said:

as soon as I read the thread title I knew what "santorums" problem was! that was the funniest modern marvel I've ever had the chance to witness/ be a part of. Screw santorum and all the gay bashing closet homo evangelists out there. Dan savage is THE most talented, blunt, honest sex/ life advice columnist who ever lived. What a hoot. Santorum is politically dead. tread lightly, and talk softly you flap-gummed son of a hor. Might wanna pick your battles a little more wisely. start with things that matter like, the deficit, the fed reserve, run away government, and global impovershment/ slavery/ genocide/ injustice/ and war.

Click to expand...

I for one feel like taking a shower after reading your words.

Get thee behind me, perversion.

It's people like Bad Medicine that make it so I read TB2 less frequently. I just have reading stuff even by accident (I try to avoid it's postings) that makes me want to throw up.

I try to stick to threads like Dutch's.

Santorum is a good man and the disgusting attempts of perverts to slime him will eventually boomerang, sooner or later.

Be Well said:

...Santorum is a good man and the disgusting attempts of perverts to slime him will eventually boomerang, sooner or later.

Click to expand...

No one is trying to slime Santorum. Where have you heard that?

However, equating homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia is sick. Homosexualty is is an act between consenting adults, while bestiality is cruelty to animals. Pedophilia is cruelty to children.

Most libertarians should agree that acts between consenting adults are not a matter for federal interference. We all should agree that cruelty to animals and children is morally wrong. Santorum cannot tell the differenece.

Problems with any of this?

.

Uhhmmm... said:

No one is trying to slime Santorum. Where have you heard that?

However, equating homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia is sick. Homosexualty is is an act between consenting adults, while bestiality is cruelty to animals. Pedophilia is cruelty to children.

Most libertarians should agree that acts between consenting adults are not a matter for federal interference. We all should agree that cruelty to animals and children is morally wrong. Santorum cannot tell the differenece.

Problems with any of this?

.

Click to expand...

You would be right if that is where it ended but since this country is heading into socialized medicine and we all have to pay for the health effects of other's lifestyles, like the hype the first lady is on about obesity then the issue becomes a public issue.

Then since what those consenting adults are doing is unnatural and is scientifically known to lead to unique health issues then it does become the federal government, and other's business.

The other reason that it is other people's business is because they keep forcing it on our children by teaching it as 'normal' in the schools. Since it does not lead to procreation it is not normal (if you doubt that put all homosexuals on an island and if they are true to their 'nature' they will die off as they do not procreate) then they are insisting on teaching our children that their perversion is normal and that is where they force it into our lives.

If they just would live their lives and leave us out of it - I could agree with you but since they insist that we condone it and force its teaching on our children then we have every right to voice our opinion just like the first lady has a right to speak against obesity. After all eating is normal. It is just those who use eating as a physical satisfaction of a gratification of the flesh when it because an acceptable tabbo by the left. How is that fair game but homosexuality isn't?

Emily said:

...If they just would live their lives and leave us out of it - I could agree with you but since they insist that we condone it and force its teaching on our children then we have every right to voice our opinion just like the first lady has a right to speak against obesity...

Click to expand...

Emily, I could argue many of your points. However, for the purposes of this thread, I am not saying that you are wrong - only that Santorum is wrong in equating an act between two conenting adults with acts that are pretty much cruel to animals and children.

.

Uhhmmm... said:

Emily, I could argue many of your points. However, for the purposes of this thread, I am not saying that you are wrong - only that Santorum is wrong in equating an act between two conenting adults with acts that are pretty much cruel to animals and children.

.

Click to expand...

He is not nearly as wrong at the 'human' (I put in quotes because I question the species) who is using disgusting avenues to try to malign Santorum.

Human beings do not treat other human beings like that. Not at least those who want any respect for their points.

Be Well said:

It's people like Bad Medicine that make it so I read TB2 less frequently. I just have reading stuff even by accident (I try to avoid it's postings) that makes me want to throw up.

Santorum is a good man and the disgusting attempts of perverts to slime him will eventually boomerang, sooner or later.

Click to expand...

Close minded Liberal Communist POS's make me want to throw up. And no Santorum is not a "good man" he's a criminal and a treasonous bastard who is NOT upholding his oath to his country and constitution (like 99% of those in DC). This country was NOT founded ON any religion or religious views, it was founded by personal freedom loving (hypocrit slave owners) who believe in minimal interference from the fed gov.

If people excersizing their rights offends you and makes you read less, well, bye. Thats what tb2k is, and 99% of us puke at the thought of hypocritical homophobic treasonous traitorists liberal trash even lurking here. Don't like freedom? Clock out.

Homosexual acts are unnatural, perverted, unhealthy, caused by mental illness, and cause further mental illness.

People such as yourself who are mentally ill and love evil drive normal people away from this site.

Interersting, to see who comes out of the closet.

Be Well said:

Homosexual acts are unnatural, perverted, unhealthy, caused by mental illness, and cause further mental illness.

People such as yourself who are mentally ill and love evil drive normal people away from this site.

Click to expand...

What a Christian thing to say, no doubt you prescribe to the teachings of Christ? Rather than return flame, and comment on your mental fortitude, how about I engage you in intelligent dialogue, just might be crazy enough to work. If your convictions are so strong, surely you'll accept a short challenge to prove your knowledge of Gods greatness and wisdom, or, accept defeat in your silence/ inability to answer them?

1.Who created all things as they are and will ever be according to his will, not yours?

2.At what point did the Christian doctrine turn away from certain behaviors and where is it documented and BY WHOM?

3.By whose authority do you label beings created in God's likeness "evil" and what is your simplest definition of 'normal'?
_____________________________________________

As a bonus and completely irrelevent/removed from the above philisophical query (get it, QUEER-EE? ) Whom has been 'driven away' from this board by the mentally ill lover of evil, yours truly, because of rational dialogue and CONSERVATIVE (notice I didn't say Christian?) dialogue and debate about the freedoms enumerated in the bill of rights, one of our countries oldest and most relevant documents/ laws? Surely you're going to stay jsut to watch the trainwreck and spread Christianity with all your love and compassion, just like Christ... I bet he's hella proud every time you say his name and wear the label.. he's like "Just like me... ". Good luck with your kid.

Emily said:

Be careful or you will draw on the wrath of the 'tolerant' left and you will find yourself with their form of justice - disgustingly maligning you.

The only thing the left are tolerant of are those who agree with them.
Everyone who disagrees with them are a target of the most vile and disgusting attacks that don't even pass as human.

Click to expand...

In Orthodoxy, we view same sex activities similar to adultery. However, we do not spend much time on either, nor go around condemning folks. We prefer to offer God's unconditional love for ALL. For us, the spiritual path involves dealing with our own demons so we might more easily set aside all earthly cares, to better experience the presence of God, right here and right now.

I don't worry about the condemnation by others. They create their own little hell on earth. I pray for God's mercy that they might receive His grace in spite of themselves.

BadMedicine said:

Close minded Liberal Communist POS's make me want to throw up. And no Santorum is not a "good man" he's a criminal and a treasonous bastard who is NOT upholding his oath to his country and constitution (like 99% of those in DC). This country was NOT founded ON any religion or religious views, it was founded by personal freedom loving (hypocrit slave owners) who believe in minimal interference from the fed gov.

If people excersizing their rights offends you and makes you read less, well, bye. Thats what tb2k is, and 99% of us puke at the thought of hypocritical homophobic treasonous traitorists liberal trash even lurking here. Don't like freedom? Clock out.

Click to expand...

You are one sick puppy, young fellow. The
Bill of Rights was and is based upon the premise that these rights were given to us by God and therefore were inalienable rights which could NOT be taken from us. You might like to go to the Supreme Court building--oh gee, what do I see?--by gosh those are the Ten Commandments incorporated into the building--must be a fluke? It is only out of morbid curiosity that I follow and watch people, to see what ignorant things people will do next--you prove my point. Have a good day. Semper Fi, The Old Grey Wolf

Wolfcreek Farm said:

You are one sick puppy, young fellow. The
Bill of Rights was and is based upon the premise that these rights were given to us by God and therefore were inalienable rights which could NOT be taken from us. You might like to go to the Supreme Court building--oh gee, what do I see?--by gosh those are the Ten Commandments incorporated into the building--must be a fluke?

Click to expand...

So do you want to take a crack at the 3 point quiz, or are you just flap-jawing it?

The certain unalienable rights as mentioned in the declaration of independence are garanteed by the "creator" , not "Jesus christ", the same creator that muslims, jews and christians share. The 10 commandements were given to moses long before jesus and are basically common law. They ae "yeah, duh" morals for living without hurting people. So are you going to argue the supreme court upholds christian values and morals? Care to explain roe vs wade? are you going to argue that this country's laws are founded on christian values? careto explan slavery in that context? Christianity has so many contradictions its almost its about obsolete to any free thinker who knows anything of its history. "faith" isn't enough to make something "right" even jews and mulsims and hindus and buddhists have "faith"..'course, they're all going to "hell" so I wouldn't expect you to understand. Goodjob being Christlike.. like I said, I bet he's hellza proud.

LMAO , Where's Bumblepuff when we need him ?? hehe

I can only imagine the doozy on frothy mixtures he could come up with in poetry form hehehehe






.

I say we send all the Homos to Saudi Arabia where as queers they will be promptly beheaded by the good muslims there Then sicko's like
Farmerjohn will have to find other childish school yard names to rhyme with. And since when did some fag making up such a childish word for such a sick a disgusting act deserve such attention