Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7019)

Florian 09-07-2011 12:47 PM

Re: Speaking of the failure of American higher education....
 
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/385...3:41&out=34:46

bjkeefe 09-07-2011 12:52 PM

Canonize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sirfith (Post 224967)
Dan "doorknob licker" Savage needs to be ostracized from polite society ...

I think Dan Savage is a shining light for polite society, and more, he is a hero for working to undermine Rick Santorum, Gary Bauer, and their ilk.

As for your view of "polite society," I will only say that this pretty much sums it up. (How I wish I could believe Ross were completely kidding there.)

miceelf 09-07-2011 01:02 PM

Re: Canonize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 224970)
I think Dan Savage is a shining light for polite society, and more, he is a hero for working to undermine Rick Santorum, Gary Bauer, and their ilk.

I think I can say this, because he's unlikely to show up on bloggingheads, but Gary Bauer looks kind of like a creepy undertaker who enjoys his job too much.

sugarkang 09-07-2011 01:09 PM

Re: Values Added: Monagamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 224941)
I like Ross, but I think he has some strange ideas about marriage. I don't think his views are necessary to a general belief in monogamy.

Really? What strange ideas? Nothing weird in the diavlog, at least.

sugarkang 09-07-2011 01:13 PM

Re: Values Added: Monagamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hume's Bastard (Post 224944)
I take it a Savage vs. Marcotte pairing wouldn't appeal to you.

Pretty sure that would be boring. What is there to argue about? Savage vs. Goldberg might be more lively.

sirfith 09-07-2011 01:18 PM

Re: Canonize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 224970)
I think Dan Savage is a shining light for polite society, and more, he is a hero for working to undermine Rick Santorum, Gary Bauer, and their ilk.

I was mocking Bob Wright's outrage over Ann Coulter referring to John Edwards as a F*g....
If Dan Savage wants to be tasteless and savagely wave his Bloody Fecal matter covered fist in the air at the Rethugs. More power to him.
He will just scream homophobia when he gets ignored by most people.

BTW, Dan Savage is a convicted criminal
Will progressives make as big a deal of that as they did with James O'Keefe?

unhandyandy 09-07-2011 01:28 PM

Social Norms
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 224932)
As far as I could tell, the only disagreement between these two was that Savage wants to end the public perception that monogamy is the normative goal in marriage, and Ross wants to keep that public perception.
If there was any other disagreement, I missed it.

I think Ross is right that if monogamy was not the public perception of the norm in marriage that many people who would really be unhappy with non-monogamous marriage would feel pressured to enter them anyway. I think this would especially be the case with a lot of women.

Two problems with this:

The simpler and more powerful solution is to empower women not to feel pressured to do anything.

If you do want to define a social norm, how is it done? Is there some Social Norm Registry where the pundit class can issue decrees and the unwashed can turn to for enlightenment?

thprop 09-07-2011 01:29 PM

Re: Canonize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sirfith (Post 224974)
BTW, Dan Savage is a convicted criminal

Yes he is such a vicious, dangerous man:

Quote:

In 2000, Savage posed as a volunteer for homophobic Republican Gary Bauer's presidential campaign. Savage, who had the flu, said he'd licked doorknobs, staplers, and coffee cups in the campaign's Iowa office, and handed Bauer a slobbery pen, all in an effort to make Bauer sick. The story made a lot of people sick, and Bauer's Iowa campaign manager got the flu around that time. Savage also said he'd registered and voted, which is voter fraud, since he lives in Seattle, not Iowa. Savage later said much of the article was fictitious, but he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and was sentenced 50 hours of community service.

sugarkang 09-07-2011 01:31 PM

Re: Values Added: Monagamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 224953)
What is preventing Dan Savage and all who agree with Dan Savage from being honest? The only rub in this case is finding someone who will accept your program. This shouldn't be insurmountable but it may take a little more time to find someone to tie the slip knot with.

I guess I just don't get Dan's issue.

You're right that there's no issue when two people agree to a monogamish relationship upfront. However, in game theory terms, a man (I'll just use stereotypes because it's easier) must participate in the lie or he will be precluded from finding a mate. A woman will reject a suitor because he is honest about wanting a flexible arrangement 20 years down the line. She'll more likely end up with a Governator or an Anthony Weiner if she's not willing to accept men for what they really are.

This is particularly true for males in positions of power because they will always have access to women who find them desirable. The option to cheat, rather than just the desire to cheat, renders cheating more likely to happen. I'm just continuously surprised that women are surprised.

sugarkang 09-07-2011 01:36 PM

Re: Values Added: Monagamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by harkin (Post 224955)
Promiscuity seems to be such an important facet of the gay community that now some seek to promote it to married couples.

Yet another reason why I find it odd that people are more likely to accept gay marriages rather than just letting it be a religious ceremony.

Sulla the Dictator 09-07-2011 02:27 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Winspur (Post 224966)
After 40 minutes in, I have no idea what Ross' position is, other than a vague discomfort with the idea of non-monogamous marriage. I'm glad he said this, though:

"The decline of marriage in the United States is a straight phenomenon that has very little to do with gay marriage and the gay agenda..."

It would be nice to see that appear in his next column, just to make things clear.


Meh, doesn't seem that controversial. The explosion of the gay agenda is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

Winspur 09-07-2011 02:59 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
A symptom of what? Americans' desire to be treated equally?

That's what Dan's and my gay agenda is, nothing more.

miceelf 09-07-2011 03:01 PM

Re: Values Added: Monagamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 224972)
Really? What strange ideas? Nothing weird in the diavlog, at least.

That's reassuring. I haven't yet seen the diavlog. I think some of his ideas came up in a previous diavlog, but they were expressed here. There's a certain quasi-mystical idea about this, which I hoped wouldn't enter into this discussion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/op...09douthat.html

bkjazfan 09-07-2011 03:35 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
This hetersosexual, monogamous social model or whatever it is called that Ross advocates is not only collapsing in the West but has turned the Catholic Church into a hotbed of derision and hypocrisy.

Sulla the Dictator 09-07-2011 03:35 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Winspur (Post 224989)
A symptom of what? Americans' desire to be treated equally?

That's what Dan's and my gay agenda is, nothing more.

Not quite. The agenda is the politicization of sexuality. The idea of a cultural sub group called "LGBTG" (Think I got that right), which has distinct interests and social mores.

This is why partisans of this group find it acceptable, or even "cute" that Dan Savage has engaged in a disgusting Internet campaign against people like Rick Santorum. The Greeks had equality of sexuality; sex was simply a matter of preference, the rest of the cultural values remained the same. Modern gays are interested in the Balkans project the Democrats have been working on, where they have a section of political and social space protected by screams of racism/sexism/homophobia.

No, the entry of sex into politics is what the gay agenda is a symptom of. That "sexual liberation" abscess from the 1970s infects the body of the American culture to this day.

Alworth 09-07-2011 03:39 PM

Shorter Diavlog
 
Ross: Society depends on normative behavior as its backbone, chief among these the marriages typified by Ward and June Cleaver but the feminists and hippies ruined it.

Dan: Actually, Ward and June Cleaver were a fake social construction that concealed the rampant infidelity and dysfunction rife in culture which was actually the real threat to marriage.

Ross: Admit that you want the 70s key parties back.

Dan: I just want a society that places a value on the bond of marriage, not the externally-enforced social norms about sexual behavior.

Ross: You are so naive, Dan.

Exeunt.

sugarkang 09-07-2011 03:41 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 224994)
"LGBTG" (Think I got that right)

No, but I'm curious as to what you think that last "G" means. :)

graz 09-07-2011 03:43 PM

Re: Shorter Diavlog
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alworth (Post 224996)
Ross: Society depends on normative behavior as its backbone, chief among these the marriages typified by Ward and June Cleaver but the feminists and hippies ruined it.

Dan: Actually, Ward and June Cleaver were a fake social construction that concealed the rampant infidelity and dysfunction rife in culture which was actually the real threat to marriage.

Ross: Admit that you want the 70s key parties back.

Dan: I just want a society that places a value on the bond of marriage, not the externally-enforced social norms about sexual behavior.

Ross: You are so naive, Dan.

Exeunt.

Standing ovation ensues.

whburgess 09-07-2011 03:46 PM

Re: Social Norms
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by unhandyandy (Post 224975)
Two problems with this:

The simpler and more powerful solution is to empower women not to feel pressured to do anything.

I don't think there is much else we can do to empower women. I think they're empowered. I say women would be especially pressured because I think they are less likely to dissatisfied with monogamy. If it became the norm to not be sexually monogamous in a marriage, there would be less women in ratio to men who would be happy about this.

Quote:

If you do want to define a social norm, how is it done? Is there some Social Norm Registry where the pundit class can issue decrees and the unwashed can turn to for enlightenment?
No registry needed; punditing is sufficient. Popular entertainment, news, marketing, media probably influence the norm more then anything for most people. I think the church, and tradition, which used to do this, is not very influential in relation to those anymore.

Sulla the Dictator 09-07-2011 03:57 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 224997)
No, but I'm curious as to what you think that last "G" means. :)

I thought that was Trans-gendered.

whburgess 09-07-2011 04:00 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sirfith (Post 224967)
Dan "doorknob licker" Savage needs to be ostracized from polite society like Bob believes should be done to Ann Coulter.

Dan Savage Redefines "Rick"
Here is how we should redefine Dan Savage = Savagely waving a Bloody Fecal matter covered fist in the air at the Rethugs.

Bob actually said that about Anne Coulter and then had this guy on?

I don't believe it, surely you're mistaken.

sugarkang 09-07-2011 04:00 PM

Re: Values Added: Monagamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 224991)
That's reassuring. I haven't yet seen the diavlog. I think some of his ideas came up in a previous diavlog, but they were expressed here. There's a certain quasi-mystical idea about this, which I hoped wouldn't enter into this discussion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/op...09douthat.html

I didn't find anything wrong with Ross's piece. What's the quasi-mystical idea?

sugarkang 09-07-2011 04:02 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225000)
I thought that was Trans-gendered.

Ahh. Makes perfect sense.

Sulla the Dictator 09-07-2011 04:03 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225001)
Bob actually said that about Anne Coulter and then had this guy on?

I don't believe it, surely you're mistaken.

No, it is completely accurate and what I was alluding to in my post.

Sulla the Dictator 09-07-2011 04:09 PM

Re: Canonize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 224970)
I think Dan Savage is a shining light for polite society,

Right. Which is why in the world of liberalism, there is neither politeness or "society". Indeed, there will barely be light.

This goes to show that liberals feel there is no limits to what may be done to conservatives. Nothing at all is beyond the pale.

miceelf 09-07-2011 04:09 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 224994)
This is why partisans of this group find it acceptable, or even "cute" that Dan Savage has engaged in a disgusting Internet campaign against people like Rick Santorum. ...No, the entry of sex into politics is what the gay agenda is a symptom of. That "sexual liberation" abscess from the 1970s infects the body of the American culture to this day.

No one worked harder than Rick Santorum to make homosexuality a political issue.

His specific libels regarding homosexuals and their "agenda" was what invited the response from Dan Savage. I don't see how Savage's treatment of Santorum was any more unacceptable than Santorum's statements about gay people and their agenda. IF nothing else, it was a whole piece more honest.

miceelf 09-07-2011 04:10 PM

Re: Shorter Diavlog
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alworth (Post 224996)
Ross: Society depends on normative behavior as its backbone, chief among these the marriages typified by Ward and June Cleaver but the feminists and hippies ruined it.

Dan: Actually, Ward and June Cleaver were a fake social construction that concealed the rampant infidelity and dysfunction rife in culture which was actually the real threat to marriage.

Ross: Admit that you want the 70s key parties back.

Dan: I just want a society that places a value on the bond of marriage, not the externally-enforced social norms about sexual behavior.

Ross: You are so naive, Dan.

Exeunt.

There was definitely a lot of talking past each other that was going on, making it, especially the early going, difficult to listen to.

miceelf 09-07-2011 04:11 PM

Re: Values Added: Monagamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 225002)
I didn't find anything wrong with Ross's piece. What's the quasi-mystical idea?

There's something special about straight monogamous marriages, but it isn't any of these things that people say, leaving,..... what?

whburgess 09-07-2011 04:13 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225004)
No, it is completely accurate and what I was alluding to in my post.

I knew about Savages history, what I didn't know was that Bob thinks Coulter should be ostracized from polite society.

Oh well, I suppose Bob is entitled to his instance of preposterous hypocrisy right along with the rest of us.

whburgess 09-07-2011 04:17 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225006)
No one worked harder than Rick Santorum to make homosexuality a political issue.

I don't know a lot about Santorum, so don't know what you're referring to here.

But, I would remind you that political reaction to what someone else has made a political issue, is not making something a political issue. Someone else has already done that.

Don Zeko 09-07-2011 04:20 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225009)
I knew about Savages history, what I didn't know was that Bob thinks Coulter should be ostracized from polite society.

Oh well, I suppose Bob is entitled to his instance of preposterous hypocrisy right along with the rest of us.

What exactly is the hypocrisy here? What is so offensive about Savage that you're equating him to Ann "I've never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much" Coulter?

BornAgainDemocrat 09-07-2011 04:23 PM

Re: What is marriage for?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 224960)
I'm against child marriages.

But in all seriousness, no. It's not. At least not for me, or for my religious fellow travellers. Marriage is for companionship; this is why we don't terminate marriages once there are no more children forthcoming, and why infertile and older couples marry all the time. The fact that a companionate marriage happens to also produce the best environment for raising children is a plus.

Companionship does not require the law. If raising children is not involved, you are talking about a domestic partnership. Also known as living together. As for spousal benefits with respect to Social Security, they were premised on the fact that one of the spouse's was staying home to take care of the kids, and was therefore financially dependent on the other.

Tax law should not favor married couples unless they have children; in that case laws that encourage, and make it easier to have and raise, children would seem rationally justified as being in the interests of society.

Biological families are, and always have been, the most fundamental institution in any society, responsible for the procreation and acculturation of the next generation. The purpose of marriage is to strengthen the bond between parents while that process is taking place. The fact that we as a society have lost sight of this basic fact is a sad commentary on the state of our culture.

If you think my commonsense views on this subject are reactionary and out-of-date, fine; in my opinion those who disagree with me on this are naive sentimentalists who are living in la-la land when it comes to the role of marriage and the family in securing the future of our civilization.

P.S. The fact that some couples are infertile and decide not to adopt children is a red herring. There is nothing to stop such couples from continuing to live together or from separating as they wish. But when young children are involved, the state as an interest in securing that relationship until the children are grown, both with incentives and by raising legal obstacles to divorce without cause. Sentimental symbolism is not what marriage is about. Gay indignation is quite out of place, and guilt-ridden liberals should not be swayed by it. (On the other hand, there is a case to be made for legalizing gay marriages when and if raising children is involved; this is not about bigotry.)

Hopefully the next generation of Americans and Europeans will come to its senses on this matter.

whburgess 09-07-2011 04:26 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 225011)
What exactly is the hypocrisy here? What is so offensive about Savage that you're equating him to Ann "I've never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much" Coulter?

I think Anne had a point in the piece you linked to.
Savage has a point in what he does as well.

Yes, I think they are equally tasteless in demonstrating their points.

I happen to like them both as well, and would not ostracize either one of them.

miceelf 09-07-2011 04:26 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225010)
I don't know a lot about Santorum, so don't know what you're referring to here.

But, I would remind you that political reaction to what someone else has made a political issue, is not making something a political issue. Someone else has already done that.

Santorum staked his early presidential ambitions almost solely on preventing gay marriage. I suppose it's true that it was already a political issue, but he certainly did his best to make it a bigger one than it already was. Although I don't think this is just a game of tag where because something is already an issue doesn't mean others aren't also politicizing.

IN terms of Santorum, though, the specific reason why Savage did what he did was because Santorum both: 1) blamed gays for the Catholic church sexual abuse scandals, and 2) compared gay rights to bestiality and pedophilia.

I guess my bottom line is that if you say horribly offensive and dishonest statements about some group, you can't be horribly surprised if some people fight back, in ways you may not like.

sugarkang 09-07-2011 04:27 PM

Re: Canonize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 225005)
This goes to show that liberals feel there is no limits to what may be done to conservatives. Nothing at all is beyond the pale.

I don't agree with a sweeping charge against all liberals, but I think Dan was unnecessarily "in your face" about it. Sometimes, the proper response in politics is to spit fire, but I think that's inappropriate when a person is attempting to have a civil conversation. Ross is a good, decent guy and I think Dan went a bit too far, even if I tend to agree with Dan for the most part.

What I don't understand is why we're litigating gay marriages. The diavlog was about monogamy. It still appears I'm the only that agrees with Dan on this point.

Don Zeko 09-07-2011 04:29 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 225013)
I think Anne had a point in the piece you linked to.
Savage has a point in what he does as well.

Yes, I think they are equally tasteless in demonstrating their points.

I happen to like them both as well, and would not ostracize either one of them.

To each his own, I suppose, but I'm not really bothered by the vulgar google-bombing of a politician, particularly one as loathsome as Rick Santorum. I don't think it comes anywhere near the level of accusing your political opponents of treason, attacking the widows of the victims of terrorist attacks, or the like.

miceelf 09-07-2011 04:33 PM

Re: What is marriage for?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 225012)
Companionship does not require the law. If raising children is not involved, you are talking about a domestic partnership. Also known as living together. As for spousal benefits with respect to Social Security, they were premised on the fact that one of the spouse's was staying home to take care of the kids, and was therefore financially dependent on the other.

I honestly don't see where one gets off on decidin what rights should adhere to people who are married in every other respect, but don't have children. You want to overturn literally centuries of tradition and religious teaching, not for your own relationships, but for others' because you have your idiosyncratic definition of what marriage is about. There has not been a time in modern history, where marriage has been limited to couples that are producing children. We do not prohibit the infertile from marrying, nor do we demand that married people produce children.

If you want a completely instrumental people-as-means relationship, where your spouse is simply there to provide egg or sperm and act as a nanny, have at it.


Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 225012)
If you think my commonsense views on this subject are reactionary and out-of-date, fine; in my opinion those who disagree with me on this are living in la-la land when it comes to the role of marriage and the family in securing the future of our civilization.

I don't think your views are out of date. I think your views are an attempt to recreate history that never was. In other words, you're the one who is trying to make up something new. the original, divinely stated purpose of marriage was companionship.

whburgess 09-07-2011 04:39 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225014)
Santorum staked his early presidential ambitions almost solely on preventing gay marriage. I suppose it's true that it was already a political issue, but he certainly did his best to make it a bigger one than it already was. Although I don't think this is just a game of tag where because something is already an issue doesn't mean others aren't also politicizing.

IN terms of Santorum, though, the specific reason why Savage did what he did was because Santorum both: 1) blamed gays for the Catholic church sexual abuse scandals, and 2) compared gay rights to bestiality and pedophilia.

I guess my bottom line is that if you say horribly offensive and dishonest statements about some group, you can't be horribly surprised if some people fight back, in ways you may not like.

I agree completely with your bottom line.

However, I still disagree that Santorum can be accused of making gay marriage an issue. No matter how strongly he reacts to someone else who has made it an issue. The fact is, if someone else hadn't made it an issue, Santorum would have never brought it up.

Also, regarding Santorum's so called equation of homosexuality with pedophilia, however his statement was taken, I think the fair approach is to believe him when he says this:

Santorum defended his remarks, declaring that his comments were not intended to equate homosexuality with incest and adultery, but rather to challenge the specific legal position that the right to privacy prevents the government from regulating consensual acts among adults, a position he disputes, because he does not believe that there is a general constitutional right to privacy.

In fact, before I even read his defense, I could see from his original remarks that he was not equating the acts but was equating the legal right to regulate the different acts. Of course, everyone knows that's what he was doing except ignorant (or stupid) people.

Sulla the Dictator 09-07-2011 04:41 PM

Re: Values Added: Monogamish Edition (Dan Savage & Ross Douthat)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 225006)
No one worked harder than Rick Santorum to make homosexuality a political issue.

Really? Bill Clinton and Don't ask/Don't tell didn't? The gays who suggested that Ronald Reagan somehow conspired to allow AIDS to spread through the gay world for genocidal reasons didn't? Gay marriage advocates didn't?

It seems to me that Rick Santorum's only "crime" is opposing gay marriage. For that, liberals seem to think that every attack is permissible.

Quote:

His specific libels regarding homosexuals and their "agenda" was what invited the response from Dan Savage. I don't see how Savage's treatment of Santorum was any more unacceptable than Santorum's statements about gay people and their agenda. IF nothing else, it was a whole piece more honest.
I don't see it. One is arguing a political matter, the other is a disgusting creep slandering the person so that his children can't use the Internet. The reason people avoided doing things like this in the past is that it would get you punched in the face. In the feminized world, the snarky jerk is king.

Sulla the Dictator 09-07-2011 04:43 PM

Re: Ostracize Dan Savage
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 225016)
To each his own, I suppose, but I'm not really bothered by the vulgar google-bombing of a politician, particularly one as loathsome as Rick Santorum. I don't think it comes anywhere near the level of accusing your political opponents of treason, attacking the widows of the victims of terrorist attacks, or the like.

Do you believe that any politician who accuses their political opponents of treason merits these vulgar attacks?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.