Rick Santorum applies for a new job - Grand Inquisitor
 

It looks like Rick Santorum is job hunting. The Catholic Church has not had a Grand Inquisitor since the 1820's. Judging by Rick's column, he's making a bid for the job.

You go Rick. You may have pitifully sucked representing me, but hey, I'm Jewish, so maybe it makes sense now. You may have just found your true calling.

And may the bonfires you light at the feet of liberal heretics everywhere shine as a beacon to your willingness to do and believe whatever it takes to get the job done.

Rick Santorum is a sick man.

I was completely disgusted when he had the news story run about his wife's miscarriage, and how he brought the dead fetus home, and had his children say their goodbyes before it was buried in their backyard.

That was such a private matter; the public does not need to know about those things. But apparently Mr. Santorum craves attention so badly, that he has to take the extreme route via the media. This column is no exception.

I am so relieved that we got that freak out of office. But it's not just him that's the problem, of course. Certain "official" stances of the Catholic church are completely wrong, and I think that has too much to do with the huge political power that it enjoys.

Good old "Dirty Ricky", still a hypocrite, still hilarious.

Some altering perspectives from snopes:
You cannot pass judgment until you have experienced it. Should he have called the media? NO!
Did he really? I cannot find where he did. If so, that is shameful. But no one forced the media to publish their reports either. Shame on them as well, if not more. He was certainly in a bad state of mind after having just lost his child.

As one who has personally gone through this tragedy I fell nothing but sorrow for him and his family. I do not like his politics, but there is no reason to bring this up either.

I'm not going to judge Rick's personal decisions or beliefs, except where it directly impacts his decisions representing me as a public official. Unfortunately, he seems unable to provide me or anyone else the same courtesy when it conflicts with his dogma.

Can you just image Rick on a commission investigating child abuse in the church? If he'd been there at the beginning, would he have exposed the abuse or conspired with Archbishop Law and others to keep it a secret?

How dirty is he willing to get to keep clean?

Classic, I wasn't criticizing what happened to him, and how he and his family dealt with it. What I am appalled about is that he went very public with it for political purposes, which it looks like you may have to trust me on, as I can't find it on the internets either after a cursory look. The coverage was out almost three years ago, while Casey was running against him for his seat.

Sorry, but I think it should be brought up when discussing Santorum. We need to be reminded of what sort of twisted person he is, so that he never gains the power he once had again. It's quite apparent that he is not content to stay out of the public eye since losing the election.

Fair enough - I'll take your word for it. I really don't remember that at all and given my situation, I think I would have.

He has what I believe is a regular column in the Inquirer. If I get sleepy late in the shift I look for it. Guaranteed to double my blood pressure and wake me right up.:mad2:

Reading his column is like listening to Kathy Bate's character in Misery. Listening to her calm and rational tone while she reaches for the sledgehammer....:thepain:

Rick Santorum is a tool, a very dangerous tool. A very dangerous, ancient tool. Like one of those horrific devices used during the inquisitions to torture innocent people.

I must agree. It says absolutely nothing about his abilities as a politician. It was a very personal decision and the public should stay out of it. It is no one's business and has no bearing on the abilities of the man in the arena.

True, true.

Real reasons Rick Santorum should not be allowed near anything resembling public power:

1. He is a proponent of - and tried to legislate the teaching of - "intelligent design" (google "Santorum language No Child Left Behind) in public schools.

2. He believes homosexuals are by definition pedophiles. He believes legislation should be based on this.

3. He believes that pedophile priests in Boston were caused by liberalism, and driven by it to commit their crimes. Obviously, nobody who lives in a Hannity-esque dreamworld like that needs to be writing legislation.

4. He shoved some hilarious pork onto the Katrina relief bill, involving tax credits for synthetic fuels.

5. He defrauded the school system and the election system, by claiming to live in PA, while he actually rented that house out and lived in VA.

6. His evidence that Saddam was going to kill us all if we didn't invade? "It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.".

7. He believes that the women in poor families work because "radical feminism" makes them, not because they might, you know, starve to death otherwise (Amusingly enough, this is WHY he isn't in government. Republican women dropped him like a hot rock for his characterization of why they work.).

I could go on, but what's the point? Santorum got CREAMED in his last election bid, 56-41, the largest defeat in PA history, and the largest defeat of an incumbent American senator since poor old George McGovern was buried alive in 1980.

He's done.

Good enough reasons for me. Given that list I would tend to agree with you.

Would the Republicans PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE run a Palin/Santorum ticket in 2012? I'd donate $2000 and a lung if they'd just do that.

Of course, maybe it's a good thing that they stay separated. If two people with views that strongly against evolution were ever in the same place, then they might cause a ripple in causality that would instantly revert the human race to primordial slime.

This would not be a bad result for Santorum, he could use the company.

Your wording is a little strange, but I see you basically agree with me--the media and public should have been kept out of it. :rolleyes:

Yes.

Well, so much for clause 3 of amendment I.

Life is just not fair is it.

Sure. It works, if you hate the US constitution.

Why do you hate the US Constitution?

:lol2:

Laugh it up. You're the guy who proposed nullifying a portion of amendment I.

Really, where would that statement be located?

You wish to muzzle the press. I already pointed out where that's unconstitutional.

You don't speak for me. I leave that job up to the Dems trying to shut down radio and tv commentators.

Read posts 15 & 16.

You spoke for yourself.

No, that is how you choose to interpret it.

Enlighten me: How else could I possibly interpret it?

Not worth the effort. It won't change your mind.

Yeah. I'm pretty firm in my support of amendment I.

yea, me too.

Except for that durned librul free press.

Except when it comes to grieving parents or what people do in their bedroom and "that durned librul free press" thinks it is ok to publish it in the paper. Yea, that over steps the line for me. :D

You are probably one of those guys who support protests at soldiers funnerals.

So you're for a limited, restricted freedom of the press.

Congratulations, so is Fidel Castro.

Ad hominem: For when you absolutely, positively have no argument whatsoever.

Why do you want to get into what grieving parents do and post it in the press? What is your motivation?

My motivation? The preservation of the free press.

That even applies to - especially applies to - vultures. There is no need to protect popular reporting.

You're either for freedom, or you're not. It really just comes down to that. Liberty ain't always pretty, get a helmet.

Why don't you support a right to privacy for greiving parents?

Because, last I checked, the right to privacy protects you from government intrusion, not from reporting. And the free press is the free press. It wins...no matter how much it might offend you and I.

Your argument is like listening to shrieking liberals complain when people bash Jesse Jackson for saying something stupid..."What about his free speech?", when the government did nothing to shut him up.

I am not talking about the government. There is not really a right to privacy in the Constitution. I am talking about your lack of humanity for greiving parents and your desire to drag their grief to the papers. Why do you support that?

The constitution trumps your sense of decency. Hell, it trumps your life, come to think of it.

There absolutely is. Amendment IV is pretty clear...and every SCOTUS decision in history has affirmed a reasonable expectation of privacy based on it.

Humanity has nothing to do with the constitution, or rights. Even that fucktard Fred Phelps has the right to do what he does. Does that piss you off? It should. Does that mean we can stop him? Absolutely not. Once you abandon the rule of law to react emotionally to any given situation, then all of your rights revert to mere privilege.

Either you support liberty and the constitution, or you don't. There is no halfway.

Actually it is not clear whether or not the Constitution gives you a right to privacy. It appears that only in a few cases has that been affirmed.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ofprivacy.html

I just don't understand why you think it is ok for the press to come into your private life and then publish that information in the news. You can't have it both ways.

Meh. Where it matters (a court of law), privacy is considered a right.

This is why it's almost impossible to get hostile testimony from a spouse admitted into a criminal trial.

This is why warrants are required to breach your right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

In fact, privacy and property are the only two reasons for the amendment.

Meh. I hang my hat on a documented source from a law school over a bunch of 1's and 0's posted by some dude on the internet hiding behind a bunch of letters who thinks he knows what he is talking about.

So you DON'T think a warrant is necessary to breach your privacy?

And there's no need to be a little bitch about the whole thing, you know.

No, I just trust the source of a documented well known law university for the opinion of Privacy as an issue of Constitutional protection over yours.

Or you could, you know, actually READ the constitution.

I trust many of those who know about Constitutional Law, sorry you lose out on that account. Although a well known university gets my vote! :D

It gets your vote over reading it yourself?

Wow.

We'd read it ourselves, except that Radar has the Cellar copy and he won't share because he says he's still studying it. ;)

So did you guys here about the documents that Eric Holder released earlier this week? It's looking more and more like Bush and his DOJ broke Constitutional Law. In very serious ways.

What do the documents say about Rick Santorum?

Sorry. I got off topic. I'll put it another thread. You guys sure are nazis about the whole thread topic thing. :p

nope - was just trying to get a new thread started
Thats one for me even though I made her do it ;)