We haven’t talked much about Rick Santorum here on the blog — actually, few people have so we aren’t too different in that, unfortunately — but he had a nice little spot on CNN in an exchange with Candy Crowley on whether or not Obama is an appeaser of foreign terrorists and tyrants.
Obama, of course, has been portraying himself as the ultimate anti-terrorist because he “got” Osamma bin Ladden, not to mention how he has severely damaged al Qaeda. But is that all there is to his record? Does that make him the perfect anti-terrorist? Santorum says no.
Rick is exactly right, here. Killing a few terrorists is not necessarily being tough on either terror or the dictators that push terror as a tool of the state.
Now, don’t get me wrong, here, I applaud Obama for the many terrorists he’s eliminated. He really has seriously damaged al Qaeda’s operations. In fact, the latest news is that al Qaeda has devolved into dozens of tiny, unconnected splinter groups. Obama has loped off so many heads of al Qaeda’s command and control structure that they have no one left that is big enough to lead them in a single direction, under a single masthead.
However, Obama has not followed that success up with a strong policy against the other terrorists the ones that run Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and the rest. In fact, he’s been a major appeaser of them. Killing a few terrorists here and there is all well and good but unless you follow that with a comprehensive policy of anti-terrorism all you are doing is spinning your wheels to a lessor effect. It’s like waiting at the gopher hole to kill gophers instead of setting taps IN the gopher’s burrows and rooting them all out from their homes. Sure you are killing a few gophers but you aren’t doing anything at all to solve the main problem.
On a side note, I have to say I think Santorum makes a very credible GOP candidate for the presidency. I have not said it before in print (not even on my home blog Joel Pollak)
December 12th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
However, Obama has not followed that success up with a strong policy against the other terrorists the ones that run Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and the rest. In fact, he’s been a major appeaser of them.
Wait– Do you mean the Saudi Arabian leaders that GWB held hands with?
I really wish you’d make up your mind. When Obama supports the Arab Spring (an effort to get rid of these dictators), the right attacks him. But apparently now he’s not strong enough in trying to remove them.
It’s like when Obama needed to get into Libya, Newt said. Except for when he did, in which case he shouldn’t have, Newt said.
Santorum, that frothy mixture of hate and ultra-right wing ideology, is a “credable GOP candidate”? Hah! The man, whose name is literally a punch line to most Americans and certainly to Google searches, has a less than zero chance at winning the White House. The republican base must know his credibility is zero, otherwise why isn’t he rockin’ those polls?
December 12th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Um, just because your sick-minded, perverted gay pals made Santorum’s name into some allusion to a disgusting sex act is meaningless to whether Santorum is qualified for anything. Nice try, though, sicko.
Further, I love how extremists like you use “you” a lot when making your halfassed replies. To wit…
“I really wish you’d make up your mind. ”
Now, if I had ever written reams of paper apologizing for Bush’s gladhanding of the scumbags oppressing Saudi Arabia, that would have been a fair comment.
Unfortunately for your stupidity, I never have. In fact, I think every president we’ve ever had has fallen down on the job by supporting ANY of the current “leaders” in the Middle East (and China for that matter). Far as I am concerned they are all murderous cretins that deserve our enduring hatred and our Dept of State and our presidents have been wrong to support them in any way whatever.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
you (pl) == the right.
As for my gay friends and the frothy meaning of santorum, it was santorum (ewww) who picked that fight. Gay guys were just humping each other happily before santorum decided to poke his brown smeared nose in their private business. I believe the final straw was when he compared them to animal r4pists.
So now rick will forever be known for, well, you can google it.
December 12th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
I love that conceit.
Yeah Santorum will be “forever known” by it…. by the 2 percent of the militant fag community that indulges their sick-minded perversions, of course. The rest of the gay community (that other 3% of America) doesn’t even know anything about it and few people out of the militant fag community has any clue what you are talking about! So, if it makes you happy that a tiny number of people think Santorum will “forever be known” by their little perverted blather about him… well, whatever floats your boat, I guess.
As to the 99% of the rest of humanity… they couldn’t care less what the militant fag community thinks about anything much less what they call Rick Santorum.
I mean, notice how it has made no real news in the presidential campagn
December 12th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
“Unfortunately for your stupidity, I never have. In fact, I think every president we’ve ever had has fallen down on the job by supporting ANY of the current “leaders” in the Middle East”
Yeah, if werent for a little commodity called “oil’ I seriously doubt there’d be half the hand shakin going on that we’ve seen for 50 + years.
Screw the pipeline right ?
Build that fcker and thats one less Aaaarab we’ll have to shake hands with.
So please, when you moonbats say you want oil independence, we know you’re full of sht and just pandering to the right and the Enviro freaks in order to push green crap.
Whos Rick Santorum ?
December 12th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Fag?
Wow, I didn’t expect to see that word on here.
It just keeps getting better and better.
December 12th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
WTF is moonbatty “ME” talking about?
Sure seems almost righteous on the topic of Rick S.
Get a life.
December 12th, 2011 at 8:02 pm
“I believe the final straw was when he compared them to animal r4pists.”
Well, ya know, Ricks actually onto something.
First of all, its not normal to want screw another man in the ass. Any course in Anatomy and its architecture and function will prove this on a scientific basis with no religious implications.
I mean, if you’ll stick in a man one can only presume that you’ll stick it in anything.
I really dont care what you stick in as long as you dont harm anyone… …or thing.
Either way around it sounds like a pretty shtty deal to me, so dont try to convince me that homosexuality is somehow any more or less normal than bestiality.
Do dogs hump Gays in the leg more often because they can sense the promiscuity ?
As ZZ says…
…”Trippin out with Great Danes”
“santorum decided to poke his brown smeared nose in their private business. ”
So, a brown smeared penis in your business is somehow better ?
You guys need to learn the difference between acceptance and tolerance.
They’re two completely different animals. No pun intended
December 12th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
Warner shows his true spots throwing that “fag” word around. Hey Warner! I wonder what you like to call Obama?
Rick Santorum is a dirty little piece of scum who talks big, but when action time comes, he does things like, fail to support a bill in Congress that would outlaw American corporations from doing second hand business with Iran, etc. He’s just another Right Wing Republican hypocrite. With a big mouth.
If Mr. McCain were in the White House right now, y’all would busily be in the process of carving his image into Mount Rushmore for killing Osama, rather than it being, ho hum, so what, kill a few terrorists, business as usual, BUT…
I really believe that this is true. I know that it is true. Obama could walk on water, bring total and everlasting peace to the Earth, cure cancer, wipe out every last nuclear weapon in existence, and turn the world into a paradise, and it would be, oh, ho hum, so what, business as usual, etc., etc., etc., etc.
This is why y’all are hypocrites. You let your hate get in the way of everything.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:17 am
Geeeeezus !!!
Me can stink up a thread as quick as Andy C.
I’ve noticed that these vicious self-loathing little goo gobblers crowd on to Conservative websites in numbers far disproportionate to their place in the general population.
I think they are still reeling from the Supreme Court decision to bar them from being Scoutmasters.
Me’s brand spanking new pup tent sits forlorn and unused in his closet.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:20 am
Oh, I dunno. I think Obama has done a good job when it comes to killing Muslims. Seems to be the only thing he is good at. Obama sure has killed plenty of Muslims. Be they Somali teenagers or Osama bin Laden. All the polls agree that the people like the way Obama kills Muslims.
December 13th, 2011 at 7:45 am
LOL @ AndyZ
December 13th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Warner, the slur you used repeatedly in comment number 4 is disgusting and inappropriate beyond belief. Especially coming from an author and not a random commenter. Surely you can make your point without resorting to ugly, childish name-calling, no?
As far as Obama and the “War on Terror”, we’re basically doing the same thing we did under Bush — recklessly barnstorming our way around the world, sticking our fingers in every pie we can find, and sending ourselves to the poorhouse in the process. You can call that policy a lot of nasty things, but “appeasement” is not one of them.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
@Mick
First of all, its not normal to want screw another man in the ass. Any course in Anatomy and its architecture and function will prove this on a scientific basis with no religious implications.
As far as “normal” is concerned, gay sex has been practiced by humans for all of recorded history. Tough to call a practice with that sort of history abnormal.
And what sort of sense does a foot fetish or a leather fetish or BDSM or any of a million other sexual preferences make from an anatomical or biological perspective? Hell, how does masturbation “make sense” scientifically?
The human brain — our main erogenous zone — is incredibly complicated. Sexual preference, like any other area of human life, is influenced by genetics, upbringing, environment, illness, etc. Does that mean anything other than reproductive missionary sex is somehow perverted or unnatural?
December 13th, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Ugh, time to edit for the censor.
@Mick
First of all, its not normal to want screw another man in the a*s. Any course in Anatomy and its architecture and function will prove this on a scientific basis with no religious implications.
As far as “normal” is concerned, gay sex has been practiced by humans for all of recorded history. Tough to call a practice with that sort of history abnormal.
And what sort of sense does a foot fetish or a leather fetish or BDSM or any of a million other sexual preferences make from an anatomical or biological perspective? Hell, how does mast*rbation “make sense” scientifically?
The human brain — our main erogenous zone — is incredibly complicated. Sexual preference, like any other area of human life, is influenced by genetics, upbringing, environment, illness, etc. Does that mean anything other than reproductive missionary sex is somehow perverted or unnatural?
December 13th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Couldn’t care less if I hurt your delicate feelings, Rhayader. Apparently you didn’t notice that my “slur” was solely against the militants. What I called them, by the way, is what they call themselves. They love the term amongst each other. Also notice I did not label the whole of the homosexual community as militant fags. Next time, pay attention to the particulars.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
And comparing homosexuality to beastiality is ridiculous as well as offensive. Beasts can not consent.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Me thinks this Gang Of Beasties gives consent.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
It’s got nothing at all to do with my feelings — rather, it’s a question of what you want this site to be about. It can be either insightful opinion and discussion or ugly name-calling and hate. It’s totally up to you, I’ll lose no sleep if that’s what things are about here now. I’ll just stop dropping by.
As far as the “that’s what they call themselves” argument, I suppose you feel comfortable walking around calling black folks ni**ers?
I’m paying attention to the “particulars” perfectly well, just disappointed by what I’m seeing.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
I don’t think you are paying attention at all. Looks to me that you are more interested in whining about my impropriety than actually talking about the issues.
It is interesting that you are more worried about my use of “militant fag” to describe inherently hate-filled gay activists than you are about what THEY are doing to coarsen our politics by trying to turn a politician’s name into a perverted sexual reference.
One has to wonder why that is?
December 13th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
Huh? Is that some sort of veiled ad hominem? Not that it matters, but I’m as straight as they come. Pun intended. And my point isn’t to whine in order to avoid any issues; I was criticizing your editorial choices on their own merits.
As far as I’m concerned, homosexuality isn’t even an “issue” any more, except to stale holdovers from a previous generation desperately clinging to any scraps of old societal hangups they can find. People my age and younger simply don’t care about who has sex with whom, or who marries whom. The trend is obvious — give it a couple decades, and tirades against “gay marriage” will be as anachronistic as worries about miscegenation seem today.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
@ Rhayader # 12
Biology 101 for Homosexual Activists and practitioners.
Homosexuals need a biology lesson about what goes where, when and why.
The alimentary canal was designed with two orifices beginning with the mouth, a tubular passage ending with the Anus.
The natural purpose of the Alimentary Canal, was for the entry of food and its digestion and absorption and then the elimination of residual waste.
There are obviously other uses for the two orifices, one end can expel words and the other can expel flatulence – it is sometimes very difficult to differentiate the two when dealing with a Liberal, but I digress.
REPLY
Sexual organs (genitalia) were designed for the reproductive system (procreation) and a means of pleasure, gratification and reward for the male and female.
Most Human Beings regard the anal orifice as a bodily tool, for expelling flatulence and human waste.
Homosexual ‘Men’ have made a willful choice to regard the anal orifice, as ‘Central’ to their identity and the object of passion, adoration, sexual fulfillment and their reason for living.
Homosexuals and their apologists, then call this ‘Intelligence’???
It certainly is NOT a stretch to think, that people who have made such choices and decisions to engage in these ‘Perverted’ behaviors, are more likely to engage in other ‘Perverted’ behaviors.
——————————
December 13th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
No, I am not suggesting anything about your sexual proclivities. I am suggesting that you are nitpicking on me while ignoring the actual issues here.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
No more of a stretch than to believe that a man who is attracted to women is also attracted to five year old girls.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
Or eating caviar, I suppose