Santorum on Bruce Jenner: ‘If He Says He’s Woman, Then He’s a Woman’

[cajuncocoa]

This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from....

[...]

Speaking to BuzzFeed’s Rosie Gray from the South Carolina Republican Party’s convention this weekend, Santorum had this to say about Jenner’s transition:

“If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman. My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticize people for who they are. I can criticize, and I do, for what people do, for their behavior. But as far as for who they are, you have to respect everybody, and these are obviously complex issues for businesses, for society, and I think we have to look at it in a way that is compassionate and respectful of everybody.”

The potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate added that “these are tough issues” and, answering another question about what public restrooms Jenner should be able to use, said that he does not “think the federal government should get into the whole issue of bathrooms.”

Santorum has long been a prominent foe of the LGBT community, so it is more than a little surprising to hear him express so much unconditional support for Jenner. Is it Jenner’s embrace of the Republican Party that has Santorum feeling so friendly? Or could it be Jenner’s declaration that being transgender does not make him gay?

Read more: http://www.mediaite.com/online/santo...n-hes-a-woman/

[dannno]

I think Santorum is way more confused about sexuality than Jenner.

[GunnyFreedom]

I think Santorum is way more confused about sexuality than Jenner.

hear here.

[Carlybee]

If it was Lindsey Graham I'd say takes one to know one

[hells_unicorn]

Santorum has always struck me as being capricious. His past love and support of abortion and his bizarre ties with Rome's token masonic order (Opus Dei) makes me suspicious of his sincerity on any topic. Hopefully this walking, talking skid-mark of a human being will not be a factor in any election in the future. I seriously would prefer it if the guy just disappeared from the public eye.

[Sola_Fide]

Santorum has always struck me as being capricious. His past love and support of abortion and his bizarre ties with Rome's token masonic order (Opus Dei) makes me suspicious of his sincerity on any topic. Hopefully this walking, talking skid-mark of a human being will not be a factor in any election in the future. I seriously would prefer it if the guy just disappeared from the public eye.

I have no rep left...

[TheTexan]

He's a woman, that likes women, but he's not gay?

[devil21]

My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticize people for who they are.

Oh so NOW you like the golden rule? Now you want to sound like Jesus?

There's no point even digging up his YTs. It's too easy.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm way more socially conservative than he is, but far less authoritarian...

[r3volution 3.0]

Okay...so if Santorum is abandoning his alleged social conservatism, what exactly is his constituency going to be?

Other sweater-vest enthusiasts?

[RJB]

I think you will see a tremendous backlacklash from women when 6'4", 250lbs women with penises start attempting to use the women's locker room regularly. Just my prediction...

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I'm a cisgendered penguin. Accept me for who I am. I can't be taxed because I'm not human. Kaaaaaw

[osan]

This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from....

GrammarNAZI alert: Whom. WHOM. Yes? Yes. Whom.

Thankyouverymuch.

Sincerely,

-GrammarNAZI

“If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman. My responsibility as a human being is to love and accept everybody. Not to criticize people for who they are. I can criticize, and I do, for what people do, for their behavior. But as far as for who they are, you have to respect everybody, and these are obviously complex issues for businesses, for society, and I think we have to look at it in a way that is compassionate and respectful of everybody.”

I see our little monkey has turned into a chameleon. Am I mistaken, or is this not the same Frothy who was decrying the sinful grossness of gaybuttsexers and that they are... what was it... going to hell or some such?

He is one of those people for whom I would shed no tear, were I to learn he'd been beaten with an iron bar.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm way more socially conservative than he is, but far less authoritarian...

Many Reconstructionists have supported Santorum, like Douglas Wilson in the last election.

[osan]

Okay...so if Santorum is abandoning his alleged social conservatism, what exactly is his constituency going to be?

Other sweater-vest enthusiasts?

Would it not be entertaining were Ricky to finally square up with himself and the world by coming out? Seems to me that any man who spends as much time addressing the gay thing as does Frothy, secretly yearns for a big giant penis in his mouth, replete with the happy ending.

Come on Rick, 'fess up. I promise you will feel better right away.

[William Tell]

I think you will see a tremendous backlacklash from women when 6'4", 250lbs women with penises start attempting to use the women's locker room regularly. Just my prediction...

I hope you are right, on the backlash thing..

[GunnyFreedom]

Grammar Nazi oops. In the above, 'who' is the subject of the subclause and is therefore appropriate. Whom is used as an object.

to exemplify, used as a subclause like above:

What I really want to know is, who is doing what to whom?

Who is the subject, whom is the object. The same applies even to subclauses like the one in question.

In that post, Cajun was correct in her use of 'who.'

Me personally, I don't care. But I do admit that I get a chuckle out of grammar naziing gone wrong.

[devil21]

Where's that SNL skit of Santorum in a gay bar during a debate?

[heavenlyboy34]

GrammarNAZI alert: Whom. WHOM. Yes? Yes. Whom.

Thankyouverymuch.

Sincerely,

-GrammarNAZI

I'll grammar NAZI ya right back. This is one of those rather rare instances in which word order allows a speaker/writer to be freer with declension. If the order was [...]considering from whom it's coming[...], I would agree. cajun's use of the nominative is, IMHO, grammatically correct. Also, "whom" is more of a bookism nowadays (for better or for worse). It has all but gone the way of "thou". Since forums are more like spoken language than written(in practice), "who" is a logical choice.

[r3volution 3.0]

This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from....

GrammarNAZI alert: Whom. WHOM. Yes? Yes. Whom.

Thankyouverymuch.

Sincerely,

-GrammarNAZI

You sir, have embarrassed the department with your misconduct. Please turn in your GrammarNazi badge and pistol and enjoy your 6 months paid leave.

"This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from from whom it's coming."

[William Tell]

I'm a cisgendered penguin. Accept me for who I am. I can't be taxed because I'm not human. Kaaaaaw

I assume you were hatched that way?

[hells_unicorn]

Many Reconstructionists have supported Santorum, like Douglas Wilson in the last election.

The Reconstructionists always struck me as a bit conflicted, holding up the banner of Calvinism while voting for idolaters, particularly ones with ties to hotbeds of semi-pelgianism like the Opus Dei. I guess it goes with tending towards Biblicism rather than adhering to subordinate confessional standards. Either way, I think Wilson took a very bad position on that one.

[heavenlyboy34]

You sir, have embarrassed the department with your misconduct. Please turn in your GrammarNazi badge and pistol and enjoy your 6 months paid leave.

"This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from from whom it's coming."

Well-played. It's like you're my brother from another mother...or something along those lines.

[Sola_Fide]

The Reconstructionists always struck me as a bit conflicted, holding up the banner of Calvinism while voting for idolaters, particularly ones with ties to hotbeds of semi-pelgianism like the Opus Dei. I guess it goes with tending towards Biblicism rather than adhering to subordinate confessional standards. Either way, I think Wilson took a very bad position on that one.

The thing is, they don't even hold up what can historically be called Calvinism. If Calvinism is what they say it is, count me out. I'll stick with the Bible.

[dude58677]

I guess Bruce Jenner can throw his gold medal in the trash can because by his logic everyone has won the gold medal given that everyone wants to win a gold medal.

[osan]

Grammar Nazi oops. In the above, 'who' is the subject of the subclause and is therefore appropriate. Whom is used as an object.

to exemplify, used as a subclause like above:

What I really want to know is, who is doing what to whom?

Who is the subject, whom is the object. The same applies even to subclauses like the one in question.

In that post, Cajun was correct in her use of 'who.'

Me personally, I don't care. But I do admit that I get a chuckle out of grammar naziing gone wrong.

I don't think I am wrong Gunny. I will explain. The original statement:

This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from.

Note the hanging preposition, "from". The grammatically correct form would be:

This just struck me as pretty funny, considering from whom it's coming.

The preposition "from" objectifies "who", rendering the proper form to "whom".

I may be wrong on this. I am, after all GrammarNAZI, not always GrammarExpert.

A good rule of thumb is that when "who" is used with a modifying preposition, the proper form becomes "whom".

Of WHOM do you speak?

To WHOM do you refer?

With WHOM are you attending?

For WHOM do you work?

Under WHOM are you secretary?

By WHOM do you claim authority?

And so on.

But if I am wrong, I am wrong.

[osan]

You sir, have embarrassed the department with your misconduct. Please turn in your GrammarNazi badge and pistol and enjoy your 6 months paid leave.

"This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from from whom it's coming."

I will turn in the badge, but please and for the sake of mercy allow me my pistol that I may atone for my sins at the foot of my bed.

Wait a minute... did you say "PAID" leave?

Um... OK, here's the gun... I'll be in Aruba if anyone needs me.

[pcosmar]

Santorum on Bruce Jenner

Conjures an image that belongs in Hot topics. (or not at all)

[hells_unicorn]

The thing is, they don't even hold up what can historically be called Calvinism. If Calvinism is what they say it is, count me out. I'll stick with the Bible.

I think that Rousas Rushdoony had a fairly strong grasp of biblical law, but he struggled applying it consistently. I generally have more in common with the politics of some of the Reconstructionists than I do with the mainstream GOP, but they run into serious trouble in a couple areas, which is why I never identified as one. The main point that they miss the boat on is the historical nature of the Christian faith. Calvin's writings, along with Luther's, Knox's, and the Synods and Assemblies of the Presbyterian and German/Dutch/Other Reformed Churches has a testimonial character to them that provides very beneficial guidance to those trying to comprehend the scriptures and also how to avoid errors. The same basically holds true for pre-Reformation and Early Church writers, though as with any teaching authority subordinate to scripture, they are naturally not infallible, though I would argue that understanding them is of a hypothetical necessity if one wishes to engage in theological combat with the adversaries of the faith.

Probably the biggest commonality I have with the Reconstructionists is their Post-Millennial eschatology. I tend to have an optimistic view of what the future will hold for the church, but I take more of a Revivalist position than a Dominionist one when it comes to implementation.

[cajuncocoa]

You sir, have embarrassed the department with your misconduct. Please turn in your GrammarNazi badge and pistol and enjoy your 6 months paid leave.

"This just struck me as pretty funny, considering who it's coming from from whom it's coming."

This. GrammarNazi must acknowledge that I left a preposition dangling in my OP sentence.