Santorum booed in contentious exchange over gay marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 2:18 AM GMT
    Apparently what works with the Christian Right in Iowa may not work in New Hampshire, at least among younger voters. No wonder this is the group Republicans want to block from voting.

    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/05/9985080-santorum-booed-in-contentious-exchange-over-gay-marriage
  • Menergy_1

    Posts: 737

    Jan 06, 2012 2:28 AM GMT
    The creep condescends too much. And he avoided the student's question by asking another question and refusing to go back to the student's question...sort of typical politician practice.

    I wish the student had calmly acknowledged that polygamy was biblically sanctioned in the Bible, there are plenty of references.....and then gone back to press and ask why TWO people of the same gender cannot get married as do one man and one woman..... no slippery slope argument allowed, Mr. Santorum. Answer the question.
  • ozhanSean

    Posts: 186

    Jan 06, 2012 3:43 AM GMT
    [url] http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XrZtlnsBq_Y#! [/url]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 4:10 AM GMT
    Shameful.

    This morning on NPR I heard him claiming during his "victory" speech that when the family structure is weakened (code), then the economy is weakened.

    As I learned it, Hitler blamed the Jews for the weakened economy of Germany and Austria.

    icon_evil.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 4:15 AM GMT
    Goooood! Let the GOP remain fractured and divided all the way through their convention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 06, 2012 4:18 AM GMT
    Squarepeg saidShameful.

    This morning on NPR I heard him claiming during his "victory" speech that when the family structure is weakened (code), then the economy is weakened.

    As I learned it, Hitler blamed the Jews for the weakened economy of Germany and Austria.

    icon_evil.gif






    These war mongering, gay bashing repubs always need an enemy to build up their popularity among their followers.


    Ron Paul is the only one outside of that group but according to them, he's looney.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 06, 2012 4:34 AM GMT
    I would have boo'd him too
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    Jan 06, 2012 4:44 AM GMT
    What sweet music to hear that bigoted piece of sh*t being roundly booed at the end of his hateful tirade.
    The days when Republicans could bash gay people in front of a crowd and assume everyone would agree with them are OVER.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 06, 2012 4:29 PM GMT
    Clearly he was looking ahead and playing to the crowd in South Carolina by showing that he would stand by his convictions even in a crowd where his stance on something like "Gay Marriage" would not be popular like in New Hampshire, where Gay Marriage is legal.
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jan 10, 2012 9:16 PM GMT
    Crowd Chants 'Bigot' at Rick Santorum at Final NH Campaign Stop: VIDEO


    http://www.towleroad.com/2012/01/bigot.html#ixzz1j4sBqJsF

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 9:30 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI would have boo'd him too

    But will still vote for Santorum if he gets the nomination, or whatever anti-gay Republican gets the nod, correct? Anyone but Obama, who got DADT repealed, and is working against DOMA, and is a more gay-friendly President than any in history, despite his political timidity.

    All your Republican presidential choices want to reinstate DADT, protect DOMA, and pass an anti-gay marriage US Constitutional amendment, to which they've all pledged in writing. But you want one of them to become our next President, right, and for Republicans to gain complete control of both Houses of Congress, and all the State legislatures, correct?

    Because Republicans are good for our economy, as they proved during the Bush years, and will continue to support the greatest shift in wealth from the middle class in our nation's history, to allow the 1% to have even more than the 40% of our national wealth than they already own.

    Just so we know where you stand, and where your real loyalties lie. They certainly aren't to gays first, as you have often expressed yourself, but to corporate America. Or would you like to further rationalize your prior statements, of Republicans first and gays last?

    In a Democracy it's expected that each citizen will vote in favor of things most of importance to his or her personal interests. But you would make gays feel guilty, because we want civil rights, and think that're an essential part of our citizenship in this country. Why should we sacrifice our freedoms. so others can oppress us and make more money for themselves? You haven't explained that part very well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2012 9:41 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    Just so we know where you stand, and where your real loyalties lie. They certainly aren't to gays first, as you have often expressed yourself, but to corporate America. Or would you like to further rationalize your prior statements, of Republicans first and gays last?

    Uh oh... off the cuckoo pills once again I see.... icon_confused.gif

    Always in character -- when you can't answer the question, go for the ad hominem attacks and the slanders. But classic Republican tactics, I'll give you that, you are indeed true to who you are, and why you are here.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 11, 2012 12:06 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI would have boo'd him too

    But will still vote for Santorum if he gets the nomination, or whatever anti-gay Republican gets the nod, correct?

    No, absolutely NOT correct. I cannot stand Santorum. One way to get me to vote for Obama without a doubt would be Santorum getting the nomination. I don't see that happening.

    Art_Deco said
    All your Republican presidential choices want to reinstate DADT, protect DOMA, and pass an anti-gay marriage US Constitutional amendment, to which they've all pledged in writing. But you want one of them to become our next President, right, and for Republicans to gain complete control of both Houses of Congress, and all the State legislatures, correct?

    Not correct. I have been endorsing Huntsman for quite awhile. The only PLEDGE he would sign is a pledge for "No Pledges". He would not reinstate DADT -- I suspect neither would Romney -- and he is all for civil unions and gay rights (short of changing the definition of "marriage" -- which I could live with and I suspect so could many other gays) I know you like to pretend that ALL Republicans are the gay equivalent of "The Boogey Man" --- not true.

    Art_Deco said
    Because Republicans are good for our economy, as they proved during the Bush years, and will continue to support the greatest shift in wealth from the middle class in our nation's history, to allow the 1% to have even more than the 40% of our national wealth than they already own.

    You're entitled to your opinion. I don't happen to agree with it

    Art_Deco saidJust so we know where you stand, and where your real loyalties lie. They certainly aren't to gays first, as you have often expressed yourself, but to corporate America. Or would you like to further rationalize your prior statements, of Republicans first and gays last?

    Please cite a single "prior statement" in which I stated "Republicans first, gays last". You won't be able to because I never said anything of the sort. Your delusions are amusing at best.


    Art_Deco saidIn a Democracy it's expected that each citizen will vote in favor of things most of importance to his or her personal interests. But you would make gays feel guilty, because we want civil rights, and think that're an essential part of our citizenship in this country. Why should we sacrifice our freedoms. so others can oppress us and make more money for themselves? You haven't explained that part very well.

    What is there to explain? I have said many MANY times that we all have ONE vote, and that we each have the right to use that vote in a way we see fit, depending on our own personal priorities. I would NEVER make you feel guilty about your personal priorities, and I don't appreciate you or anyone else making me feel guilty about mine.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2012 12:24 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI would have boo'd him too

    But will still vote for Santorum if he gets the nomination, or whatever anti-gay Republican gets the nod, correct? .


    You’ve singlehandedly talked me into it. IF Santorum is the eventual nominee, yes I will vote for Santorum.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 11, 2012 12:28 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Art_Deco said
    CuriousJockAZ saidI would have boo'd him too

    But will still vote for Santorum if he gets the nomination, or whatever anti-gay Republican gets the nod, correct? .


    You’ve singlehandedly talked me into it. IF Santorum is the eventually nominee, yes I will vote for Santorum.



    Thankfully, that isn't likely to happen.
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Jan 14, 2012 9:21 AM GMT
    Rick Santorum Gets Smacked By Joan Crawford In Parody Clip