I'll skip the jokes and just go straight to BULLSHIAT.

Nonsense, we all know he's hard on gays.

dopeydwarf: hard on

I think it's one word.

dopeydwarf: Nonsense, we all know he's hard on gays.

Only for four hours at a time. Otherwise he has to seek immediate medical help.

Because he hasn't suggested stoning?

Yet...

Let's face it: you can't stop people from having butt sex. Even straight people enjoy it. What does he plan to do, go all big brother on America? Put cameras in homes? No. Santorum is full of shiat. Also, he would totally disown his son if it helped his own political career.

We're safer from Santorum's war on butt sex than on Obama's war on guns*


*Gun owner's lives have actually gotten easier since Obama has come into office

R.A.Danny: We're safer from Santorum's war on butt sex than on Obama's war on guns*


*Gun owner's lives have actually gotten easier since Obama has come into office

Obama has a war on gun owners?

Mugato: R.A.Danny: We're safer from Santorum's war on butt sex than on Obama's war on guns*


*Gun owner's lives have actually gotten easier since Obama has come into office

Obama has a war on gun owners?

None that can actually be pushed on The People. Pretty much my point.

Is doing it despite Santorum considered getting your "Brown Wings?"

Mugato: R.A.Danny: We're safer from Santorum's war on butt sex than on Obama's war on guns*


*Gun owner's lives have actually gotten easier since Obama has come into office

Obama has a war on gun owners?

He does. He showed up at my door yesterday with the King of England trying to take my guns and quarter soldiers in my house, the bastard. Luckily I thwarted that effort.

As for Santorum, he's probably the most anti-gay candidate in modern political history. Anyone that socially conservative is someone who has NO IDEA which way the wind blows. Social change may come slow in America, but it still comes. People like him are simply on the wrong side of history,

1950 is over and it's not coming back. People don't care if others want to gay it up. Even if I agreed that homosexuality was wrong (which I don't), I wouldn't really care what others did. If it's a sin, that's between them and god, after all. Who do they hurt? What problems do queers cause me, or anyone else?

/straight, but support gay rights 100%

nekom: If it's a sin, that's between them and god, after all.

This x 1,000.

Also goes for reproductive rights, premarital sex, and just about anything else one can do so long as it brings no harm to another human.

Rick Santorum seems to have a lot of butthurt because of gays.

nekom: /straight, but support gay rights 100%

it's cool that you support gay rights. you don't need to defend it with your sexual preference.

/unless you're trying to land a date with your steaming hot political talk.
//i suggest a different tactic.

One day Rick will finally tell the story of the night he "accidentally" wandered into Peter's Mine Shaft and, attempting to join in on a seven-man Albanian Monkey Barrel, was cruelly told to "go home to your *wife*" and, as he tearfully ran the whole way home he swore "If I can't play Rotisserie Chicken by two shaved Kevin Michael Richardson lookalikes, then NO ONE CAN!"

Some say that in the men's room stall closest to his old Senate office late at night you can still hear gentle sobs and a foot lamentingly doing a "tap tap slide tap slide."

talulahgosh: it's cool that you support gay rights. you don't need to defend it with your sexual preference.

That really wasn't my intention. My intention was to point out that myself as well as a LOT of other straight people are for gay rights these days. It isn't just an issue that gays care about anymore.

I think it's largely because so many are `out' now. It's not an abstract concept anymore, people know gays. Friends, family, co-workers, etc. It's no longer "Should gays be allowed to get married?", it's "Should Steve and Bill be allowed to get married?" Putting a face on something changes the game.

"I would be a voice in speaking out for making sure that every person in America, gay or straight, is treated with respect and dignity and has the equality of opportunity," Santorum said after asking if he'd be a "voice for gay rights" in the GOP. "That does not mean that I would agree with certain things that the gay community would like to do to change laws with respect to marriage (duh), respect to adoption, and things like that."

"I want everyone to have the same opportunities. Except with regard to leading fulfilling lives."

kingoomieiii: Gay people have the same right to marry someone that they don't love and aren't attracted to as any straight person. Heck, their lives would probably be better if they simply recognized the financial advantage and leverage that marriage for property means. Love only complicates these matters. We need a return to traditional marriage, where women are chattel to be bargained for taking them off their father's hands. Gay, straight, it doesn't matter, so long as the tradition of property and retention of familial fortunes are intact, and if the gay population had any familial loyalty, they'd be strengthening the ties instead of looking at relationships as "loving" and not the bedrock of property and succession that they are.

He just wants to cut through the crap and ram home the nomination

nekom: talulahgosh: it's cool that you support gay rights. you don't need to defend it with your sexual preference.

That really wasn't my intention. My intention was to point out that myself as well as a LOT of other straight people are for gay rights these days. It isn't just an issue that gays care about anymore.
I think it's largely because so many are `out' now. It's not an abstract concept anymore, people know gays. Friends, family, co-workers, etc. It's no longer "Should gays be allowed to get married?", it's "Should Steve and Bill be allowed to get married?" Putting a face on something changes the game.

maybe with this movement it won't be necessary to label ourselves, like the civil rights movement did. people no longer say, i support equal rights for all races and i'm white. you just say it.
one can dream.

nekom: People like him are simply on the wrong side of history,

This so very much. That gives me comfort when I shake my head at people who are so anti-gay. In the end, change will come and people will not understand how others in history could have thought differently.

talulahgosh: maybe with this movement it won't be necessary to label ourselves, like the civil rights movement did. people no longer say, i support equal rights for all races and i'm white. you just say it.
one can dream.

No doubt we'll get there some day. Progress comes rather slowly here. To compare it with the civil rights movement, in 1850 a black man could be enslaved, in 1900 he could be lynched for no particular reason. In 1950 he couldn't go to certain establishments or drink from certain fountains. Hell interracial marriage was outlawed in Virginia until the 1960s (64?), and in 2008 a black man was elected President. Not exactly a whirlwind of change coming fast, but it does happen.

talulahgosh: nekom: talulahgosh: it's cool that you support gay rights. you don't need to defend it with your sexual preference.

That really wasn't my intention. My intention was to point out that myself as well as a LOT of other straight people are for gay rights these days. It isn't just an issue that gays care about anymore.
I think it's largely because so many are `out' now. It's not an abstract concept anymore, people know gays. Friends, family, co-workers, etc. It's no longer "Should gays be allowed to get married?", it's "Should Steve and Bill be allowed to get married?" Putting a face on something changes the game.

maybe with this movement it won't be necessary to label ourselves, like the civil rights movement did. people no longer say, i support equal rights for all races and i'm white. you just say it.
one can dream.

I'm not gay. I'm a frikkin' Republican, and I support equal rights all around. Which, to be fair, is sort of what being Republican used to be, until we started folding in a lot racist mofos into the party when the Dixiecrats left, and when the party started accepting Evangelical support. The party should be leading this fight, on the side of religious freedom, equality under the law, and the right to privacy. That folks aren't shows how compromised the GOP has become.

Imposing your religious thoughts on others is against Republican values. Imposing large government imprint into our lives is against said Republican values. The problem is, that some folks like big government when it happens to support their pet causes. That is a failure within the party. That is a failure with the leadership. Using the government as a bludgeon to promote the exclusion of rights of folks you think are "icky" is no more good Republicanism than looking to limit what people say and do in the privacy of their own homes, yet we have a fair sized piece of the caucus that thinks that the two go together because PRAISE JEEBUS! When in fact, we have been a nation where no one faith is supposed to be ascendent. It will get better, but we have to clear out the folks who have corrupted the process and the platforms with their frippery and wrong headed thought that they can make people better.

nekom: talulahgosh: it's cool that you support gay rights. you don't need to defend it with your sexual preference.

That really wasn't my intention. My intention was to point out that myself as well as a LOT of other straight people are for gay rights these days. It isn't just an issue that gays care about anymore.

I think it's largely because so many are `out' now. It's not an abstract concept anymore, people know gays. Friends, family, co-workers, etc. It's no longer "Should gays be allowed to get married?", it's "Should Steve and Bill be allowed to get married?" Putting a face on something changes the game.

It's about minding your own business and letting other people run their lives. That used to be a conservative ideal, but the right has turned into something else in the last couple of decades.

Rick can't tell the difference between "2" and "3" or the difference between "human" and "dog". That alone should disqualify him for the Presidency.

Imposing your religious thoughts on others is against Republican values. Imposing large government imprint into our lives is against said Republican values.

At some point I think you're going to have to admit that these ARE now Republican values.

I've never seen you agree with anything that is an ACTUAL Republican value of the last decade. Sure you agree with a lot of the imaginary ones like respect for the rule of law, limited government especially in areas of morality, intelligent reality based foreign policy. But these are just that - imaginary Republican values.

They left you mate.

Tigger: Perhaps I am still an idealist. And perhaps old fashioned. These kids, with their hippitty hop and acid washed jeans and Christian Rock music...

hubiestubert: Tigger: Perhaps I am still an idealist. And perhaps old fashioned. These kids, with their hippitty hop and acid washed jeans and Christian Rock music...

we should start the fark party.
we believe
1. "get off my lawn".
which includes
1a. "i don't give a fark what you do as long as you aren't hurting anyone".

/since it's fark, i suppose we'll have the "show me your boobies" option as well. not my thing, but hell, it goes back to rule 1, subsection a.

bobbette: OCCUPY GAYS

heigh-o!! put the kids to bed!!

R.A.Danny: Mugato: R.A.Danny: We're safer from Santorum's war on butt sex than on Obama's war on guns*


*Gun owner's lives have actually gotten easier since Obama has come into office

Obama has a war on gun owners?

None that can actually be pushed on The People. Pretty much my point.


That wasn't my question.

Mugato: R.A.Danny: We're safer from Santorum's war on butt sex than on Obama's war on guns*


*Gun owner's lives have actually gotten easier since Obama has come into office

Obama has a war on gun owners?

Absolutely. Just ask the guys selling the guns and ammo. They'll tell you all about how you should buy as many guns and ammo now, before it's too late.

Agreed. Hubiestubert is one of the most well-spoken and honest Farkers, bar none,

I also agree with this. It's like that guy you know who won't accept that his wife's a cheating coont.

Lando Lincoln: Mugato: R.A.Danny: We're safer from Santorum's war on butt sex than on Obama's war on guns*


*Gun owner's lives have actually gotten easier since Obama has come into office

Obama has a war on gun owners?

Absolutely. Just ask the guys selling the guns and ammo. They'll tell you all about how you should buy as many guns and ammo now, before it's too late.

Right, so in other words, that other guy is full of shiat.

Lando Lincoln: Mugato: R.A.Danny: We're safer from Santorum's war on butt sex than on Obama's war on guns*


*Gun owner's lives have actually gotten easier since Obama has come into office

Obama has a war on gun owners?

Absolutely. Just ask the guys selling the guns and ammo. They'll tell you all about how you should buy as many guns and ammo now, before it's too late.

The guy who owns the gun store in my town donated $500 to Obama 2012 to say "thanks" for the massive uptick in business.

Mugato: R.A.Danny: Mugato: R.A.Danny: We're safer from Santorum's war on butt sex than on Obama's war on guns*


*Gun owner's lives have actually gotten easier since Obama has come into office

Obama has a war on gun owners?

None that can actually be pushed on The People. Pretty much my point.


That wasn't my question.

Yes, part of his written agenda was to bring back the Assault Weapons ban. It isn't going to happen, and may very well have been for political gain only, but it was there. He has not spoken of it since getting into office, and has done more FOR gun rights than Bush ever did, so it may very well have been a red herring. My exact point is that Santorum's "promises" are just as valid, as in not at all.

"That does not mean that I would agree with certain things that the gay community would like to do to change laws with respect to marriage, respect to adoption, and things like that."

To a republican:

"I'm a voice for gay rights in the GOP" == "I will make sure gays are not allowed to marry or adopt children"

They are so utterly coddled and insulated from criticism that they actually think stepping on the throats of others and denying them their rights is equivalent to defending their rights. It's not even possible to imagine how screwed up you have to be to think like that.

sprawl15: R.A.Danny: Yes, part of his written agenda was to bring back the Assault Weapons ban. It isn't going to happen, and may very well have been for political gain only, but it was there.

I honestly think someone just sat him down and explained to him why the Assault Weapons Ban makes no sense on any level.

Perhaps. He was among the "Lefter" when it came to guns in his past, but has been pretty much mute on the subject since then. I'm not getting all "Fartbama wants our GUNS!" or anything, I was merely pointing out that Santorum's silliness won't stand a chance.