The top Google result for "santorum" is spreadingsantorum.com (LMAO)

[Dianne]

Santorum's picture is priceless, lolol

h xxp://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/20/santorum-claims-his-filthy-google-results-have-an-impact-on-the-country/

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?315771-Has-RPFs-become-Smut-Central

Notice the silence on this while photographs of Bachmann eating a corn dog somehow provoke irrational foaming at the mouth.

[ZanZibar]

Wow, what a whiner.

[The Free Hornet]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?315771-Has-RPFs-become-Smut-Central

Notice the silence on this while photographs of Bachmann eating a corn dog somehow provoke irrational foaming at the mouth.

Seriously? Although both issues are funny, Santorum's problem overlaps with 'disgusting' in the same way Bachmann's overlaps with 'childish'. Also, Dan Savage owns the Santorum issue and it is 100% independent of RP. Were people really "foaming at the mouth" or was this more about not trying to alienate voters? Bachmann has ten times as many to offend and the corndog thing is, arguably, sexist. Santorum simply picked a fight with the wrong group.

[flightlesskiwi]

Wow, what a whiner.

and he would like some cheese with his wine.

*****
whining is not very becoming. especially of a grown man.

[flightlesskiwi]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?315771-Has-RPFs-become-Smut-Central

Notice the silence on this while photographs of Bachmann eating a corn dog somehow provoke irrational foaming at the mouth.

i suppose it's because no one has posted a picture of number one definition of "santorum" and juxtaposed it with the second definition. posting a picture a world of hurt dost much more make.

[dannno]

He probably googles himself every morning wishing that it will disappear one day.

[Dianne]

The right to privacy does not exist under the U.S. Constitution, according to Rickie.

Full interview here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

[ZanZibar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9onEksxhXf8&feature=player_embedded

[Sola_Fide]

I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with Santorum in that his argument is valid because the whole thing is filthy. It's nasty, it doesn't elevate the debate at all.

And I will go out on a limb and say Ron Paul wouldn't approve of his supporters engaging in the promotion of such nastiness.

Furthermore, I don't see how it does the gay propaganda machine any favors to promote that kind of filthiness, but hey...we are dealing with homosexuals and perverts, so I can understand why it would seem worthwhile to them.

Rick Santorum is the worst of the worst. There are tons of things that principled people can go after him over. This whole frothy thing is nasty and base imho.

[jmdrake]

You know the irony of the whole Lawrence v. Texas thing? If the court had truly been concerned about the privacy of someone's home, why didn't they say "Since the police were called to the house on a bogus report about gunfire, all evidence should be suppressed" then everybody's right to privacy would have been advanced. Imagine if Lawrence had been smoking a joint? Under current law if the police come to your house for any reason and see or smell drugs or anything else they can go after you.


The right to privacy does not exist under the U.S. Constitution, according to Rickie.

Full interview here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm

AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?

SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.

[Dianne]

Well, in my view; he left himself wide open too it. Since when did he become "GOD" to tell people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their home.. And insist the Constitution doesn't afford any of us privacy for your bedroom business ... The Supreme Court decides what we can and can't do, according to him.

No offense, but does he insinuate you can't get a BJ in your own home? Constitution doesn't protect privacy for any sexual acts unless approved by Rick Sanitorum.

Thank God he and his family immigrated to this country, so they could straighten us out; and tell us when and where we can have sex and to whom. What would we have ever done without this guy? Hey Rick, are there certain nights we can have sex? Or are we waiting for your decree?

[flightlesskiwi]

I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with Santorum in that his argument is valid because the whole thing is filthy. It's nasty, it doesn't elevate the debate at all.

And I will go out on a limb and say Ron Paul wouldn't approve of his supporters engaging in the promotion of such nastiness.

Furthermore, I don't see how it does the gay propaganda machine any favors to promote that kind of filthiness, but hey...we are dealing with homosexuals and perverts, so I can understand why it would seem worthwhile to them.

Rick Santorum is the worst of the worst. There are tons of things that principled people can go after him over. This whole frothy thing is nasty and base imho.

yes, it is disgusting. and yes, it is a low blow. and yes, many of the beliefs that santorum adheres to we should loathe. for instance, his support of using government force (The State) to legalize morality (see post #8). all in the name of fear ("but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families").

[LirvA]

I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with Santorum in that his argument is valid because the whole thing is filthy. It's nasty, it doesn't elevate the debate at all.

And I will go out on a limb and say Ron Paul wouldn't approve of his supporters engaging in the promotion of such nastiness.

Furthermore, I don't see how it does the gay propaganda machine any favors to promote that kind of filthiness, but hey...we are dealing with homosexuals and perverts, so I can understand why it would seem worthwhile to them.

Rick Santorum is the worst of the worst. There are tons of things that principled people can go after him over. This whole frothy thing is nasty and base imho.

Are you referring to homosexuality, or the attack website?

[Dianne]

yes, it is disgusting. and yes, it is a low blow. and yes, many of the beliefs that santorum adheres to we should loathe. for instance, his support of using government force (The State) to legalize morality (see post #8). all in the name of fear ("but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families").

I'm with ya bro... I am what the Almighty Sanitorium would consider "straight"... Heterosexual female ... nothing kinky here... a little bit frigid. But in my view, more power to those that enjoy; whatever, eases the stress of the day.

If I finally get that wild hair, must I proceed to "Godfather Sanitorium" .... the judge, the jury and the executioner; for approval?

Just get out of all our lives, Frothy, lololol.... You'll be the last one I call for approval for anything. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Sanitorium has some little tart hidden under his bed.. He is reminding me more and more of John Edwards, every day.

[COpatriot]

Well, in my view; he left himself wide open too it. Since when did he become "GOD" to tell people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their home.. And insist the Constitution doesn't afford any of us privacy for your bedroom business ... The Supreme Court decides what we can and can't do, according to him.

No offense, but does he insinuate you can't get a BJ in your own home? Constitution doesn't protect privacy for any sexual acts unless approved by Rick Sanitorum.

Thank God he and his family immigrated to this country, so they could straighten us out; and tell us when and where we can have sex and to whom. What would we have ever done without this guy? Hey Rick, are there certain nights we can have sex? Or are we waiting for your decree?

Yup. For as much as he hates Iran, Santorum seems to want nothing more than to turn this country into the Christian version of Iran. I'm very thankful that even Republican primary voters can realize that this guy is batshit stupid. Or at least enough so that he'll never make it out of single-digit territory. Too bad they can't reach the same realization about that other Rick in this thing.

[Dianne]

I'm going to go ahead and say that I agree with Santorum in that his argument is valid because the whole thing is filthy. It's nasty, it doesn't elevate the debate at all.

And I will go out on a limb and say Ron Paul wouldn't approve of his supporters engaging in the promotion of such nastiness.

Furthermore, I don't see how it does the gay propaganda machine any favors to promote that kind of filthiness, but hey...we are dealing with homosexuals and perverts, so I can understand why it would seem worthwhile to them.

Rick Santorum is the worst of the worst. There are tons of things that principled people can go after him over. This whole frothy thing is nasty and base imho.

I have not googled Santorum to see the site. I take your word for it, that it is disgusting. But Santorum's "God" complex led to it; and he only makes matters worse by giving them publicity.

[libertybrewcity]

He stopped running ads to cover it up..he must be low on funds or about to give up. not surprised.