Comments

  1. says

    Too bad Frothy hasn’t read the Bible. According to the Bible (the literal word of God, right?) marriage is between a man, his pack of concubines, his mother, a pack of raped hookers, etc… Who is Frothy Mix to tell us what marriage is, when the Bible clearly tells us what God says it is?

  2. bobbyjoe says

    “This is a napkin. I can call this napkin a paper towel. But it is a napkin. Why? Because it is, what it is. Right?”

    If we’d only pass a law that said demonstrably insane people are ineligible to run for public office, we could clean all the problems of this country up in minutes.

  3. says

    Well that was the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a while. Was this speech designed to be read to drunk children who already aren’t very bright?

    I don’t yet understand how incest and polygamy can be linked to gays marrying.

    what’s the connection? we ask “What’s wrong with gay couples marrying?” And they say “WHAT ABOUT INCEST?”

    I’m like “I’m not talking about incest I’m talking about this. Why are YOU talking about incest?”

    This is literally like Santorum saying “we have to outlaw plums because i can’t STAND the taste of pineapples!”

    …whaaa?

  4. Sargon Bighorn says

    “Marriage existed before government.” Don’t you love these statements that appear to be fact, but are really spun out of nothing. They have no basis in reality and can’t be supported. He may as well have said, “Marriage existed before people”.

  5. Brad says

    its interesting that they think we shouldn’t compare our civil rights mvmt to the old civil rights mvmt, two different but at least similar things. But they can make the most ridiculous apologies. I’ve been compared to: a napkin, trash on the road, beastiality, polygamy, pedophiles and all sorts of things that have nothing to do with civil rights.

    AND

    Yes. We can redefine a napkin tone the same as a paper towel. And before long, people would use them interchangeably. Just look at the difference between British English and American English. Somewhere along the way many words were redefined. Talking about the pants you wear isnt weird in Texas. But in England, you’d be talking about your underwear. Somewhere along the way we, or they, redefined the word. Since we invent language, we have the ability to redefine it. What a stupid argument. Good thing most people don’t care about frothy mix at all.

  6. Harry says

    Why is Rick so obsessed w/ gay marriage? Gays are not destroying heterosexual marriage, the heteros are doing a great job of destroying the institution themselves, they don’t need our help. Also why are people wasting money on this shmuck, he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning any nomination let alone the Republican Presidential nomination.

  7. Ian says

    Ahhh-ha-ha-ha-ha!!! The guy loudly getting a huge soda…sitting down eating his pizza, sipping his coke, reading his magazine, paying no attention….is my HERO! love him! Ahhhh-ha-ha-ha

  8. bravo says

    1) Santorum is harping on this to not-to-sutbly arguing against two of his oppenents who are descended from polygamists.

    2) His argument is that the essence of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, not the union of two people in love or a man/man or a woman/woman or a man/several women. For him, the essence of marriage includes man-woman.

    For advocates of same-sex marriage, the essence of marriage is the union of two people who love each other. The gender identification of these two people are not essential to this definition of marriage, this gender identification is accidental. (It is from this that he made his famously frothily slippery slope man-on-dog argument.)

    I actually give him credit, as he is making an argument well within the tradition of Plato-Aristotle-Aquinas.

  9. Daniel says

    Two things:

    1. A napkin and a paper towel are not really that different. And isn’t their “essence” essentially the same?
    2. Has he gained weight? I think yes.

  10. walter says

    here’s a bigot who has job no plan and np hope of being elected president hasn’t he used up his 500,000 dollars yet. santorum proves money can’t buy you love. did you remember to google santorum today

  11. just_a_guy says

    It’s not a valid use of “Platonic forms”; the “napkin” silliness is a ruse to pretend he’s thoughtful. He’s not.

    It’s just the same old nutso slippery-slope argument, with a silly new twist. By definition, SLIPPERY SLOPE LIKE THIS ALWAYS CONVINCE THOSE WHO ALREADY AGREE WITH YOU.

    They don’t convince anyone else.

    The only way you could WIN with a slippery slope argument is if people’s deep-seate HATE matches the gist of your slippery-slope argument: If so, then people will try to cite the slippery-slope argument instead of admitting their hateful views.

    That santorum mess is not doing anything new. Still sloshing around in his same old slime.

    And how DARE he knock on gay parents (and thus their kids)!

    He is such a DIRTY individual. I’m tired of seeing him and responding, to be honest.

    Please shut up, santorum-wipe. Sorry…u keep doing it to yourself, buddy.

    I really DO wish you’d stop, bud, and if it were me, I’d want someone to tell it to me straight up. So, dude, haven’t we been straight up enough?! C’mon already. Please start paying attention…you are way TOO easy a target.

  12. just_a_guy says

    I guess Ann COulter would want me to say:

    Oh, well, the Dobson-Falwell-Santorum view of the Bible is LAW, and should be enforced…gays and women be damned. (And then add a stupid brainless smirk, like she does, showing she belives it like a young SS, even if saying it as-if half–but only half–in jest.)

    Sharia-much, Santorum?

  13. FunMe says

    Seriously, are most republiCONs missing more than 1 screw in the head? They sure do seem to breed a lot of the CRAZIES, lunatics and simply plain bizarro characters.

  14. Robert in NYC says

    I wonder how he’d respond to Mormon cultist Warren Jeffs’ recent sentencing to life in prison for sexually abusing underage girls and countless numbers of polygamous marriages? Mighty silent isn’t he, ditto Bachmann and all the others on the radical right. What did same-sex marriage have to do with that I wonder? Santorum et al need to provide the factual evidence to support his and their idiotic mantras. I wonder why there is such a huge gap among republicans and their fellow tea party, civil libertarian scumbaggers as far as intellectual curiosity goes? They demonstrate NONE, but simply rely on soundbites and present them as facts.

  15. HOCKEYJOCK says

    Yes, but BOTH paper towels and napkins ARE USED TO WIPE UP OUR MESSES. Paper towels, napkins, wetnaps, rags, Kleenex, heck even toilet paper, they ARE ALL tissues and fabrics that keep our hands dry and our tables clean.

    Just because they have slight physical differences (as we all do), and different names, does not mean one of them should be singled out and denied access to the rights all the others have.

    If you have a napkin that can successfully wipe up a mess, just like a paper towel, I don’t see why you would let the paper towel get married, and not the napkin.

    That is blatant discrimination, just on the basis of it’s name.

    Seriously, your reason for denying napkins the right to marry, is that ‘they are called napkins’. Extremely weak reasoning.

  16. Inis says

    The latest USA Today/Gallup poll has Sticky Ricky getting just 1%.

    One Percent!!!

    That means there is a greater percentage of gay people in the United States than Republicans who are willing to vote for Rick Sanitarium.

Leave A Reply