@boredomsa More importantly, why do people support his nomination? Anyone can try to become president. The "anybody but Romney" camp has sort of run out of options. They weren't bright enough to get someone who had a chance to run. The country has some 300 million people in it and the best the party seems to be able to do is a choice between an idiot and a weasel. It really really is 3rd party time.
Santorum is the candidate of uneducated bigots and haters. He is against people going to college because he wants everyone to be an ignorant pawn of a theocracy that actually works to empower the few (such as himself). Everything about this man, including his rejection of the separation of church and state, is anti-American.
I've never liked even one thing Santorum has said...
plus, this is overflowing with logical fallacies. But marriage should be abolished and there shouldn't be limits on marriage. There shouldn't be legal/financial incentives by the state for people to get married. Polygamy, if consentual (non religious?), is an incredibly good model for raising children and providing them support.
@syzygywell - Sure ignore history and how we have gotten to where we are. What you failed to see is that the DSM changes to meet whatever socially popular agenda is at hand. It is a social control mechanism. There is no science here, just subtle manipulation over a long period of time. The DSM already includes so-called "religious zealots" in various Psychological disorders... how long until they exterminate? YOU get a grip. Waiting on the next holocaust...
@nuntiusrex Seriously man what is wrong with you do not believe in God?! God made Gay people, however religion now that IS a chosen lifestyle. Sorry you just can't get the toothpaste back into the tube. 14 nations have had ssm starting over a decade ago. These last 2 weeks have been breathtaking with 3 state legislatures voting for marriage equality.. amazing. And the DSM well that was 40 years ago, that generation is dying or dead. This next generation won't even remember it.
why does polygamy only apply when talking about gay marriage? polygamy is equally applicable to heterosexual marriage, but he fails to bring that up, for some reason.
Santorum is correct. This is one of the primary issues. Cheapening marriage. So aunts can marry their favorite nephews. Once they reach 16 years old. Plus people can go to town marrying all the young nubiles they want from foreign countries. Then keeping them as concubines, but calling them spouses. And any that cause disfavor they get to deport.
@Senehtsotara Rick Santorum "One Of The Finest Minds Of The 13th Century". Seriously I used to be a republican but couldn't take it anymore. I despise what the party has become. Truly he IS the Leader the GOP deserves I keep hoping like hell they nominate him.
@jack4nd1 oh how i love to debate someone with your IQ i would think just above a rock rick is no differant than obama or mitt or newt so if you have any point that is differant please state it if not you have nothing to debate so go back to the corner and put your pointed hat back on and be brainwashed by the TV
chicken rick wants it to be his way and you dont get a choise he starts the wars and you go he raises the debt and you pay he takes your rights you lump it because rick is like a spoiled kid if he doesnt get his way everybody is picking on him rick needs to man up if he wants war join up and go more spending reach in his own pocket less rights go to afganistan DONT LET CRYBABY RICK HAVE HIS OWN WAY IT IS TIME FOR HIM TO GROW UP AND SHUT UP
Firstly- He never answers that damn question, he just makes it impossible to have a logical discussion about an issue that makes him uncomfortable.
Secondly- It shouldn't matter if two men, two women, or three men and four women want to marry each other. People can't help who they fall in love with and if someone wants to marry two other people, let them! Why should this even be an argument?
@embypemby The whole "gay marriage" issue is just red meat for the right wing voters. It is being made an issue in an effort to get the to the poles.
That said, it would not surprise me to discover that Santorum is secretly gay. He bring up the subject way too often. The last several highly placed gay republicans were like that too.
Firstly- He never answers that damn question, he just makes it impossible to have a logical discussion about an issue that makes him uncomfortable.
Secondly- It shouldn't matter if two men, two women, or three men and four women want to marry each other. People can't help who they fall in love with and if someone wants to marry two other people, let them! Why should this even be an argument?
What a fucking asshole Santorum is. If polygamy is comparable to a monogamous relationship, then heterosexuals should have caused it a long time ago. The conversation here is allowing two people who have a special bond, who love each other, to have the right to marry. He's basically saying that gay people are the menace of our generation. One of the reasons why a Republican won't win 2012.
WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA AND SANTORUM both want more wars,over seas spending,raising the debt want big government want the fed ,dont want to audit the fed want a big say in your rights dont want to bring the troops home both say they have religion but both want to destroy familys with more war both skipped out of serving in the military both want to tell you the side you need to be on both dont want to attend the wars they start and why should we vote for either we still get screwed
The GOP hates free thinkers. Its how they can control ppl. So they keep pushing old point of views on their shrinking base. The evangelicals and hillbillies who get their political views from aunt bea on the porch skinning rabbits. A black president is outside their belief system. Theyve been trashing and disinfranchising black ppl all their lives. Just shows you if you raise a black person in U.S. away from this hatred and bigotry (like Hawaii) you can produce Harvard graduate Presidents.
Countries with same-sex marriage: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United States
Countries that allow some form of polygamy: Iraq, Malawi, Libya, Namibia, and Uganda
Hmm, well since people hunting deer feel good by killing a defenseless animals, maybe its the same as them killing a human or a dog and feeling good about it! Wow, building that strawman argument felt so good!
well the media agrees that there should be incestrious marriages. it's between two people. the definition that they give for gay marriage also applies for incest
@ouch2112 Polygamy, slaves, and the slaughter of the populations of cities is all over the place in the old testament. There is also that stuff about if you wear clothing made from two types of fiber you should be put to death etc. Jesus showed up and said "who soever believes in me ..." basically saying all that stuff doesn't apply any more. Many people call themselves "Christian" but want to ignore most of what he said.
@knowledgemonger a lot of those so-called "Christians" agree with you--they just think the old testament still applies when it comes to the gay stuff.
@knowledgemonger "Many people call themselves "Christian" but want to ignore most of what he said." Like pray in private, in silence, and only the Lord's Prayer. The whole Catholic Church ignores "call no man father." The list could grow but near the top is, "how you treat the least amoung you is how you treat me."
have you noticed how many times rick almost starts crying this is a scam just like obamas fainting woman how low will rick go when he started playing the sick kid card and crying i thought shame on him and shame on his wife for letting him do that if you want to know rick look what he did in the past like raise the debt 5 time or collecting 2 mill lobbying cause thats just what he will do in the future dont be fooled he is a scammer he has and will scam you
this guy is not listening to anyone, he's clouding the issue with another one. what is up with this man, he is clouding his judgement with his religious belief. which if you have a secular government which it is supposed to be in the US.
Does Santorum, or those with like minded views on gay marriage, ever cite what teaching of Jesus is being dishonored by same sex marriage. The only Jesus relevant teaching I can think is the Lord’s Prayer where we are directed to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. I don’t want government judging the value of my marriage therefore I’m compelled to not judge those same sex couples who seek the same status for their union.
@whitymale It is almost certain that Romney will be the nominee. This will give some voters a very bad headache. Romney is the guy who signed into law the health insurance changes that Obama used as a model for his program. Romney really was copying an old Richard Nixon idea but most people won't remember back that far so Romney will get the blame. So people will either have to vote for this guy or that guy who did basically the same thing.
So, I don't agree with him (gay marriage should be legal), but I respect his use of the Socratic method and can see his reasoning: "if the reason that gay marriage should be legal is that it brings about 'happiness' - which is each person has an undeniable right to pursue happiness- than why not a group of people who want to marry?" I would argue, the answer is that a marriage of multiple people alienates another undeniable right - equality... don't bash the guy for being rational.
There is no difference when it comes to Individual rights - the only true rights. No one can dictate who someone can form a relationship with - whatever the relationship - if that person's choice does not inflict on the Individual rights of others. Polygamy does not inherently do that.
State recognition of these relationships is a different issue and it only has to do with rights as far as if its' endorsement of incorporation is at the expense of the Individual.
The timeless Chewbacca Defense, confuse the audience by making an illogical aspect seem relevant to the issue.
BTW, does anyone else remember that alien ship-doctor from StarTrek TNG who had several wives, who also had several husbands, who also had several wives and so-on and so-forth...
Santorum is getting a bad rap because he's asking a legit question: He is testing the foundation of the lady's question based on her own moral definition by using that same moral definition for another case for marriage. He is not comparing gay marriage to polygamy, he's asking, based on the moral foundation given, why isn't that right as well? The lady says it's different, and Santorum wants to know why based on the definition she gave? It shows inconsistency and hypocrisy on the lady.
@2timothy23 It's impossible to make a perfectly consistent and thought-out argument in that setting. The question was not about polygamy, it was about same-sex marriage. He couldn't come up with a valid reason for his bigoted homophobia, so instead he just appeals to the purely emotional reaction people have against polygamy. To modify his comment, "if it's ok for opposite sexes, then you have to differentiate between same sexes". He didn't do that. He didn't address the argument.
@PBDPBD Santorum was going to give a valid reason, but your own comments show why he could not; you already named him a bigot and homophobia, so anything he said would be labeled that. He had to address the moral foundation of same-sex marriage, yet they shouted him down. He tried to show that those that have a moral foundation of thinking it's right don't think polygamy-valid marriage for those that think it too is right-is right. Why not? It's inconsistent.
@2timothy23 You can read minds now? how do you know he was going to give a valid reason? I labeled him that because of the countless things he has said before. It frankly doesn't matter the woman was inconsistent. People can be stupid, but that doesn't invalidate the conclusions they derive. It would have been far easier for him to just say how same-sex marriage harms anyone (for example), but instead he made a red herring/ad hominem. Specifically, the fallacy of tu quoque.
@PBDPBD I don't have the ability to read minds, but based on what he said in the video, I could logically conclude where he was going. And inconsistency does matter, because the very marriage she tried to defend by her reasoning she rejects for polygamy. She defines marriage as the same sex marrying, but where does she get the moral authority to define marriage that way and others can't define marriage to include polygamy? This is logical reasoning, not emotional rants.
@2timothy23 Logical reasoning? Look up the "tu quoque" fallacy. Your entire argument is a logical fallacy. She was NOT talking about polygamy, she was talking about same-sex marriage. For Santorum to IGNORE that fact and focus on polygamy is a fallacy. Also look up "slippery slope". Polygamy is a very different thing from monogamy, with lots of legal, sociological, psychological, and other consequences. You are NOT arguing against any kind of monogamy when you argue against polygamy
@PBDPBD "Polygamy is a very different thing from monogamy, with lots of legal, sociological, psychological, and other consequences." Different for you, but for the polygamist it's valid marriage. Again, you're defining marriage based on your preference. It doesn't make a difference if marriage is between the same sex or multiple partners if the person who defines it prefers it. No absolutes, so you set the stage. This was Santorum's point, but you disregard it, so that's that.
@2timothy23 If you can't comprehend the simple and obvious fact that monogamy is very different from polygamy, and hence arguing against it says nothing about monogamy, then we won't get anywhere. ...By invoking the bible when arguing against providing basic rights to people, you are directly contradicting the very foundations of this country. It is not just morally wrong, it also flies in the face of the VERY FIRST amendment and much of the reason why the US is what it is.
@PBDPBD We won't get anywhere because we have differing worldviews with different presuppositions. I originally made a comment, you replied to show me your counter view. I respect your right to have that view and express it, but it's contrary to mine. I share mine because it's the truth of God, you share yours based on the "truth" of man. We respectfully disagree. I invoke the Bible because my worldview is based on that. I don't throw it out to appease those that disagree. Have a good day.
@2timothy23 Lame cop out. My views aren't completely arbitrary ones that are mindlessly followed because I happened to be born in a certain family. They aren't based on a collection of books written and translated by mostly anonymous MEN. My views ARE based on objective values, facts, and reasons that are accessible to all people who try to understand them. They also happen to be amenable to reason and evidence. I give your views all the respect they are due, which is none.
@PBDPBD In addition, if you think gay marriage is right, by what moral authority do you make that moral judgment? Based on what the lady said, it's based on the individuals involved and what they think is right or what makes them happy. If so, then anyone's definition of marriage is valid, even polygamy. This is the point. If you think polygamy is wrong, then doesn't that make you bigoted and phobia-like in your assessment of that view of marriage? Relative morality leads to inconsistency.
@2timothy23 Yes, SSM should be legal. The "moral authority" is basic empathy, secular ethics (eg. utilitarianism), and the principles found in the constitution. SSM increases happiness, has lots of economic and other benefits, and inconveniences no one. There is no reason for the government to interfere in our personal lives and tell us what individuals to marry or not to marry.
Polygamy is a completely different thing. You could argue that it decreases happiness and harms society.
@PBDPBD So now SSM is good based on increased happiness, etc. Well, can't the polygamist use the same reasoning? How dare you deny their right to their own happiness because you think your definition of marriage is right? Sound familiar? This type of moral authority is relative because anyone can make that assumption about anything as long as they don't believe in an absolute authority. This is not sound or reasonable because it then makes SSM superior based on your own comment.
@2timothy23 First off, I never said I was opposed to polygamy. My position about it would depend on a wide variety of factors, and I would need to do more research, but that's precisely the point. Polygamy is NOT the same thing as monogamy. And once again, "So tell me, what basis do YOU (presumably) argue we have for allowing opposite-sex people to marry but not same-sex people?"
@PBDPBD My authority is based on the very thing you say is irrelevant, The Bible, so, therefore, it means nothing to you. But your opinion or belief in the Bible doesn't validate absolute truth. God is Creator and sets the absolute standard for all things, but mankind will always reject it because that's called sin. We love our sin nature, so whatever floats our boats we will embrace. God created us and sets the standard for all things, even marriage. I'm sure you reject it, but it's true.
@2timothy23 So tell me, what basis do YOU (presumably) argue we have for allowing opposite-sex people to marry but not same-sex people? And before you invoke the bible, the bible is completely irrelevant. We aren't talking about churches marrying people (who should be free to refuse to marry interracial couples or anyone else IMO), we are talking about the secular legal contract (and associated benefits) that is issued by the US government.
@phalsebob Yes, it looks like heads will explode. They will have to either vote for the Mormon or the guy they try to tell people is a muslim. It doesn't look like the one with way too many wives will be the nominee. Maybe the party can get its act together for 2016. As it is, the powers that be decided not to support the best options. Perhaps Huntsman was just a little too smart to be controlled. Perhaps the fact that he is a mormon matters to them.
@Nuby29 I'll also note that most of the 16 scientists in the article have no formal training on climatology. There are chemists, engineers, geneticists, and others... but only a couple of climatologists. Weathermen are NOT climatologists by the way. Having said that, a bunch of non-experts talking about things they know nothing about could be 100% right. However, they're not. What they are saying is complete and utter BS. Notice how there are ZERO references? That's because it's BS.
@EmeraldView "Actually the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists after MANY years of study agree that not only is the earth warming, but human activity is a significant contributor to that." WRONG! search for 16-scientists-have-a-message-for-elected-officials-on-global-warming-drastic-action-unnecessary... "A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50+ yrs
@Nuby29 16 scientists? SIXTEEN scientists? Holy crap man. Do you have ANY idea, even the slightest idea, how many hundreds of thousands of scientists there are out there that have been saying the opposite? The IPCC alone represents 2,500 scientists. Of course, it summarizes the work of tens of thousand more scientists. The Academies of Science, also representing thousands of scientists from 32 countries, has also strongly urged the world to reduce CO2 emissions.
@PBDPBD It's called "conventional ignorance". But 1st of all, I doubt that hundreds of thousands of scientists have studied global warming so that statement is absurd. But to my point, what you claim is that because most "scientists" support global warming that it must be true. The majority belief does NOT prove something is "right" or "wrong". And these 16 independent unbiased scientists report why, if you read the report. Its the same with Keynesian economics, another farce theory
@Nuby29 I was merely showing that your idiotic comments about there not being a consensus were clearly and objectively wrong. I never made the argument that climate change is occurring BECAUSE practically all experts in the field agree that it is. If you want to argue that, then fine... I'm quite familiar with the science involved. Anthropogenic climate change IS occurring, that is a fact. Not because all the experts say so, but because reality says so.
@PBDPBD As a simple example, of the 10 hottest years on record (ie. directly measured from all over the world... and even from space), NINE are in the 2000's. To say that there is a "lack of global warming for well over 10 years now" is nothing short of a lie. They continue LYING by citing climategate. The quote was COMPLETELY taken out of context, just google it (the quote) and click the first result. And this is just an example- I can't address every point in youtube comments
@PBDPBD And why don't you look at the other side of the picture. Like Mars temperature increasing. Venus has never measured hotter temperature. Our sun has never shown more solar activities. Yeah, there's probably some form of global warming. The temperatures don't lie, but saying it's men made is debatable. And there are independent studies in bio-domes where they increase the CO2 level, not only did the temperature not increase but more plants grew to counter act the CO2 level.
@Nuby29 Mars- mars has periodic changes in its orbit called Milankovitch cycles. We know EXACTLY why it's warming, it has absolutely nothing to do with the earth. Venus- it's been getting warmer for millenia. Why? because of the CO2 in its atmosphere. Nothing to do with either the sun or the earth. Sun- That is complete bullshit. Other than the past year or so, the sun was in a severe minimum, and the cycle is about 11 years long. We've known about global warming for decades.
@Nuby29 In addition, we can measure the output of the sun DIRECTLY. It is NOT increasing over time at anywhere near the pace needed to account for the warming. Dozens of studies have looked for a link between the sun and warming- in short, IT IS NOT THERE. Increasing CO2 has a very small and short-lived effect on a limited type of plant growth. It is not sustained because CO2 is not a limiting nutrient. Look up "limiting nutrient". Fertilizer contains N and P for a reason.
@Nuby29 As for your claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas... that's just sheer inanity. Countless experiments have been done showing that it is. We can measure it empirically and we also know exactly why it is. We can also empirically measure that CO2 concentrations have increased over the past few decades. Re: your other comment- Judging from the article, they are outright lying. Even their most basic claims can EASILY be refuted within 2 minutes of googling.
@PBDPBD "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today." Are u claiming this is a lie?
@Nuby29 I didn't say that every single sentence was a lie. The reason CO2 is added to greenhouses is because the plants in greenhouses receive lots of fertilizer and other care. Thus, by providing them with the nutrients which would normally be limiting, they make CO2 a limiting nutrient. However, this is only the case under VERY artificial situations, and CO2 is nowhere near being a limiting nutrient for the vast majority of the biosphere.
@Nuby29 The fact is that yes, CO2 IS a pollutant, as well as absolutely necessary for all macroscopic life on earth. It is indispensable at the right quantities, but there is ALWAYS a level at which good things become bad. For example, CO2 can be lethal. Small rodents and other animals are routinely euthanized by pouring CO2 into their enclosures. The mechanism is completely different, but too much CO2 on the atmosphere does have negative effects on human life on earth.
@Nuby29 CO2 is also bad because it increases the acidity of the oceans. When CO2 dissolves in the ocean, it produces carbonic acid. This has been directly measured, and it amounts to a change of 30% in acidity. This has lots of negative effects, but I'll just mention one example: Most mollusks, corals, forams, sea stars, and many other animals depend on skeletons made out of calcium carbonate. Acidification makes it much more difficult for it to be deposited, and that lowers their health
@PBDPBD Notice how your article doesn't make any mention whatsoever of ocean acidification? That's because they don't care about the science. They know that 99% of the people reading it don't have a clue about the science, so they felt no need to actually address it. If they actually cared about the science, they would have published their article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or would have at least included a reference or two so that we could check on their claims.
@PBDPBD "idiotic comments" ok smarty pants, why don't you email Claude Allegre, director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, William Happer professor of physics Princeton, Richard Lindzen professor of atmospheric sciences MIT, Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut, Michael Kelly, professor of technology, Univ of Cambridge, William Nordhaus Yale economist, and debate them on why they're wrong. I'm sure you know more than they do. lol. You're an arrogant prick who knows nothing
@Nuby29 The consensus IS overwhelming. The earth IS warming, and it IS due almost exclusively to human activity. I could go on citing the clear statements that different scientific organizations have said about this, but suffice it to say that there is not a single scientific organization that doesn't accept anthropogenic climate change. In addition, reviewing the scientific literature yields a similar result. There are so few scientific papers arguing against ACC that they're negligible
@AudioFuelProd In the bible lots of people had multiple wives. It is sort of surprising to see Santorum saying that polygamy is a bad thing. He seems to be one of those "lets return to the good old days" sort who suggests that there was some time in the past that was better than today. Lots of people get that impression partly because their parents worried about the bad stuff for them when they were children and partly because history ignores a lot of real life things.
@AudioFuelProd In the bible lots of people had multiple wives. It is sort of surprising to see Santorum saying that polygamy is a bad thing. He seems to be one of those "lets return to the good old days" sort who suggests that there was some time in the past that was better than today. Lots of people get that impression partly because their parents worried about the bad stuff for them when they were children and partly because history ignores a lot of real life things.
Santorum let his Wife have Abortion, Santorum LOVES Wars & Death, Santorum LOVES to KILL Iran Scientists, Kill Abortion Doctors, CIA Killing Americans, Santorum Loves Death Penalty for Prisoners, Santorum Loves to Kill & Eat Animals, Santorum Voted to Cut Every Social & Welfare Program which helped the poor, helped women, girls, immigrants, and children. Santorum Voted to Cut Education and Food Aid Programs.
This is the most inane argument ever. It's not even apples and oranges.
"If it is okay for two, then why is it not okay for three?"
Santorum, you stupid pile of shit, the same reasoning would apply to heterosexual marriage...
Also, the bible says something about divorce too. And you did too, before leaving your wife for a younger woman. I guess your religion has to be enforced only when it doesn't stop you from sleeping with whoever you like.
PardonMyZinger - Intolerant leftist, just like Hitler, rejected marriage, strengthened planned parenthood, and probably hates his ignorant pro marriage ancestors.
Wife of pro-life presidential candidate Rick Santorum had love affair with abortion doctor 40 years her senior ... who was also the same doctor that delivered her as a baby !
Pro-life campaigner, 51, was a 22 yo nursing student when she fell in love with 63 yo father of six
Santorum believes abortion practitioners should face 'criminal charges'
Karen Santorum, who, like her husband, opposes abortion even in cases of rape, and birth control, has yet to comment.
If we go off his logic, A man and woman shouldn't marry either, because that would lead to a man and 2 women, or a woman and 2 men. By his reasoning a heterosexual marriage is a could lead to heterosexual polygamy.
It is irrelevant about three or more people wanting to get married because it is about marriage equality. We are wanting the legal right for TWO people who love each other, regardless of their sexuality, to have the opportunity to get married if they wish.
Have more then two people in a marriage is a whole different issue, one that would require a complete rewrite of marriage laws. Gay marriage already fits within the legal frame work of the current marriage laws.
There are many christian denominations that perform same sex marriages, e.g. Quakers. They have the same bible as you do. You don’t really think that god is telling them something different than he is telling you, do you? You can be certain that if god hates all the same people you hate that you have created god in your own image. Don’t justify your homophobic hate by blaming god. You are responsible for your own irrational prejudices.
To the Friends, or "Quakers", as you call them, gay sex is a deadly sin, for that's what the Bible says (Romans 1:8-32).
There are half a million Friends in the world, only a few thousand of them in the UK, and a few hundred in Australia/New Zealand. Of the latter, a tiny minority of less than 10% each met and approved "unanimously" -- lol -- a motion that gay marriages should be allowed.
God damn the people in the audience are stupid as hell. He was asking a very relevant question and those dumbasses just couldn't wrap their tiny minds around the point he was making.
This is plain silly, stupid, waste of time. Yes - fine with me you foolish, pretentious politician. Marry as many people as you want. Why would anyone care if people want to be polygamists? Freedom right? That's what we want.Three men together. Fine - freedom to enter into a contractual relationship recognized by the state. You don’t have to call it “marriage.” As far as I’m concerned the state should get the hell out of the marriage business and engage in degrees of contractual relationships.
It would appear that the Prime Minister of India - Manmohan Singh, and the ruling Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi have joined forces with the most dreaded force known to man - Lawyers, and are now vying for the title of 'The Biggest Puddle of Santorum in India'.
Maybe Santorum Americanus should join forces with Santorum Indicum and jointly sue the likes of Google, Yahoo, and Facebook. We can call it 'The Grand Santorum Technicum'!
@KehBay Fortunately, Santorum has no chance of becoming the nominee. I don't want to see the republican party laughed right out of the election, and that is what would happen if he was put up. He is just way to weird to get elected. Romney will almost certainly lose to Obama and is a slime-ball but at least he is not outright funny. I really think that it is time for rational people to give up on the party and start a new one.
In order to implement gay marriage one need only eliminate the laws prohibiting it. On the other hand, polygamy opens up many potential issues with regard to who inherits after a death, who gets Social Security survivor benefits, who gets custody of children, and many more. Marriage grants benefits unique to two individuals - effectively designating the spouse as the most important person legally in your life. Gay marriages still maintain this aspect, while polygamous ones do not. Next question?
Don't people with more liberal ideology generally advocate a separation of church and state? If so, marriage is a religious ceremony. Instead of protesting for gay marriages to be legalized, shouldn't they be protesting for the state to stop recognizing marriages all together?
It would allow people to judge themselves and others as they see fit. A person can claim to be married, and another person can claim that the same person isn't married.
@davidhudman There are many people who do not believe in your primitive religious superstitions who marry. Church marriages are not legal in the US unless the state issues a marriage license. Just like morality, religions have never had a monopoly on marriage.
@kokotepeyac Santorum during Civil Rights: If we allow black people to vote, it will mean that they will want to vote twice, then we will have to allow dogs to vote
There are many christian denominations that perform same sex marriages. They have the same bible as you do. You don’t really think that god is telling them something different than he is telling you, do you? You can be certain that if god hates all the same people as you do that you have created god in your own image. Don’t justify your homophobic hate by blaming god. You are responsible for your own irrational prejudices.
yeah, but while there are many cases of polygamy mentioned in the Bible, I didn't find any case of same sex marriage. Seems that some people can't read properly...
@schlagerhansi Neither is a woman's right to vote. The bible promotes slavery. There is no mention of civil or human rights, The bible is a fairy tale.
Why is he allowed to run?
boredomsa 1 day ago
@boredomsa More importantly, why do people support his nomination? Anyone can try to become president. The "anybody but Romney" camp has sort of run out of options. They weren't bright enough to get someone who had a chance to run. The country has some 300 million people in it and the best the party seems to be able to do is a choice between an idiot and a weasel. It really really is 3rd party time.
knowledgemonger 8 hours ago
"Anybody can marry anybody else." YES! That does not mean "anybody can marry several people."
PrinceHughes 1 day ago
You can't fix stupid.
JFranz1981 2 days ago
Santorum is the candidate of uneducated bigots and haters. He is against people going to college because he wants everyone to be an ignorant pawn of a theocracy that actually works to empower the few (such as himself). Everything about this man, including his rejection of the separation of church and state, is anti-American.
Senehtsotara 2 days ago
I've never liked even one thing Santorum has said...
plus, this is overflowing with logical fallacies. But marriage should be abolished and there shouldn't be limits on marriage. There shouldn't be legal/financial incentives by the state for people to get married. Polygamy, if consentual (non religious?), is an incredibly good model for raising children and providing them support.
JamesonLemonade 2 days ago
This man is a moron.
EnGoldilox07 2 days ago
@syzygywell - Sure ignore history and how we have gotten to where we are. What you failed to see is that the DSM changes to meet whatever socially popular agenda is at hand. It is a social control mechanism. There is no science here, just subtle manipulation over a long period of time. The DSM already includes so-called "religious zealots" in various Psychological disorders... how long until they exterminate? YOU get a grip. Waiting on the next holocaust...
nuntiusrex 3 days ago
@nuntiusrex Seriously man what is wrong with you do not believe in God?! God made Gay people, however religion now that IS a chosen lifestyle. Sorry you just can't get the toothpaste back into the tube. 14 nations have had ssm starting over a decade ago. These last 2 weeks have been breathtaking with 3 state legislatures voting for marriage equality.. amazing. And the DSM well that was 40 years ago, that generation is dying or dead. This next generation won't even remember it.
syzygywell 2 days ago
If I was there I'd bash him with his own mic. XP
CheesecakeCzar 3 days ago
What a turd.
cantfindcar 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum owned a factory that was barely breaking even with 1200 employees, which one do you think would close it first?
IAMJESUSmovie 4 days ago
why does polygamy only apply when talking about gay marriage? polygamy is equally applicable to heterosexual marriage, but he fails to bring that up, for some reason.
NessFK 4 days ago
Santorum is correct. This is one of the primary issues. Cheapening marriage. So aunts can marry their favorite nephews. Once they reach 16 years old. Plus people can go to town marrying all the young nubiles they want from foreign countries. Then keeping them as concubines, but calling them spouses. And any that cause disfavor they get to deport.
kalumnist 4 days ago
is rick santorum supporting polygamy? he totally makes sense...
lunchboxboy 5 days ago
Comment removed
lunchboxboy 5 days ago
Rick Santorum represents the 21st Century Republicans. I don't get why anyone is a Republican anymore. The party isn't what it used to be.
MikeFromSF 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL- RON PAUL
RON PAUL- RON PAUL
RON PAUL- RON PAUL
NWOsupportersRdbags 6 days ago
Where is this guy's birth certificate? It seems obvious he was born in Europe . . .
during the Dark Ages.
Senehtsotara 1 week ago
@Senehtsotara Rick Santorum "One Of The Finest Minds Of The 13th Century". Seriously I used to be a republican but couldn't take it anymore. I despise what the party has become. Truly he IS the Leader the GOP deserves I keep hoping like hell they nominate him.
syzygywell 2 days ago
Sexual orientation isn't necessarily a choice, but being a bigot always is.
Senehtsotara 1 week ago
@Senehtsotara sexual orientation IS a choice.
PatriotInChief 1 week ago
@PatriotInChief guess again
Senehtsotara 1 week ago
Is this guy is from the 1600s?
NykRivas 1 week ago
What might cause an aging Catholic choir boy to become so abnormally obsessed with other people’s sexuality?
alivingock 1 week ago
@jack4nd1 oh how i love to debate someone with your IQ i would think just above a rock rick is no differant than obama or mitt or newt so if you have any point that is differant please state it if not you have nothing to debate so go back to the corner and put your pointed hat back on and be brainwashed by the TV
ford5522 1 week ago
chicken rick wants it to be his way and you dont get a choise he starts the wars and you go he raises the debt and you pay he takes your rights you lump it because rick is like a spoiled kid if he doesnt get his way everybody is picking on him rick needs to man up if he wants war join up and go more spending reach in his own pocket less rights go to afganistan DONT LET CRYBABY RICK HAVE HIS OWN WAY IT IS TIME FOR HIM TO GROW UP AND SHUT UP
ford5522 1 week ago
@ford5522 Are you a dumb ass? You sure write like one.
Jack4nd1 1 week ago
Hey ivolsky, upload the entire video instead of having it cut off right when it was getting interesting, or when Santorum was winning the argument.
Jack4nd1 1 week ago
@Jack4nd1
He wasn't winning it.
wretcherwretch 1 week ago
What an asshole.
Firstly- He never answers that damn question, he just makes it impossible to have a logical discussion about an issue that makes him uncomfortable.
Secondly- It shouldn't matter if two men, two women, or three men and four women want to marry each other. People can't help who they fall in love with and if someone wants to marry two other people, let them! Why should this even be an argument?
embypemby 1 week ago
@embypemby The whole "gay marriage" issue is just red meat for the right wing voters. It is being made an issue in an effort to get the to the poles.
That said, it would not surprise me to discover that Santorum is secretly gay. He bring up the subject way too often. The last several highly placed gay republicans were like that too.
knowledgemonger 1 week ago
What an asshole.
Firstly- He never answers that damn question, he just makes it impossible to have a logical discussion about an issue that makes him uncomfortable.
Secondly- It shouldn't matter if two men, two women, or three men and four women want to marry each other. People can't help who they fall in love with and if someone wants to marry two other people, let them! Why should this even be an argument?
embypemby 1 week ago
What a fucking asshole Santorum is. If polygamy is comparable to a monogamous relationship, then heterosexuals should have caused it a long time ago. The conversation here is allowing two people who have a special bond, who love each other, to have the right to marry. He's basically saying that gay people are the menace of our generation. One of the reasons why a Republican won't win 2012.
F7dim 1 week ago 2
WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA AND SANTORUM both want more wars,over seas spending,raising the debt want big government want the fed ,dont want to audit the fed want a big say in your rights dont want to bring the troops home both say they have religion but both want to destroy familys with more war both skipped out of serving in the military both want to tell you the side you need to be on both dont want to attend the wars they start and why should we vote for either we still get screwed
ford5522 2 weeks ago
Solve all these issues by making marriage contractual.
DrewThePianoKid 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The GOP hates free thinkers. Its how they can control ppl. So they keep pushing old point of views on their shrinking base. The evangelicals and hillbillies who get their political views from aunt bea on the porch skinning rabbits. A black president is outside their belief system. Theyve been trashing and disinfranchising black ppl all their lives. Just shows you if you raise a black person in U.S. away from this hatred and bigotry (like Hawaii) you can produce Harvard graduate Presidents.
erockula 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
erockula 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
erockula 2 weeks ago
This was great. The student didn't have an answer for him. She cornered herself.
1RedshirtXLG 2 weeks ago
@1RedshirtXLG The answer is "yes." She is a hypocrite. Staggering irony that rick santorum exposes bigotry at a liberal college. Yes.
NATESOR 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Countries with same-sex marriage: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, The Netherlands, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United States
Countries that allow some form of polygamy: Iraq, Malawi, Libya, Namibia, and Uganda
MikerL81 2 weeks ago
Hmm, well since people hunting deer feel good by killing a defenseless animals, maybe its the same as them killing a human or a dog and feeling good about it! Wow, building that strawman argument felt so good!
atlballer81 2 weeks ago
@atlballer81 Forgot the premise of all parties consenting... KIND OF IMPORTANT. (not a strawman, simply exposes people as hypocrites.
NATESOR 1 week ago
well the media agrees that there should be incestrious marriages. it's between two people. the definition that they give for gay marriage also applies for incest
ramfan32 2 weeks ago
I noticed that on most santorum videos comments have been disabled by right wing supporters. Cowards! Papist claptrap!
mrbeatnikjd 2 weeks ago
What do you expect from an unemployed lobbyist?
Guy got fired from his senate job.
HENRYPATRICK1736 2 weeks ago
dude...polygamy is the only form of marriage that's actually explicitly taught in the Bible!
ouch2112 2 weeks ago
@ouch2112 Polygamy, slaves, and the slaughter of the populations of cities is all over the place in the old testament. There is also that stuff about if you wear clothing made from two types of fiber you should be put to death etc. Jesus showed up and said "who soever believes in me ..." basically saying all that stuff doesn't apply any more. Many people call themselves "Christian" but want to ignore most of what he said.
knowledgemonger 2 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger a lot of those so-called "Christians" agree with you--they just think the old testament still applies when it comes to the gay stuff.
ouch2112 2 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger "Many people call themselves "Christian" but want to ignore most of what he said." Like pray in private, in silence, and only the Lord's Prayer. The whole Catholic Church ignores "call no man father." The list could grow but near the top is, "how you treat the least amoung you is how you treat me."
wagzel 2 weeks ago
That was awesome. The audience obviously had a problem with polygamy but wouldnt admit it. Marriage equality for everyone except polygamists! Lol!
cybernate777 2 weeks ago
have you noticed how many times rick almost starts crying this is a scam just like obamas fainting woman how low will rick go when he started playing the sick kid card and crying i thought shame on him and shame on his wife for letting him do that if you want to know rick look what he did in the past like raise the debt 5 time or collecting 2 mill lobbying cause thats just what he will do in the future dont be fooled he is a scammer he has and will scam you
ford5522 2 weeks ago
Isn't "santorum" the frothy mix of fecal matter and lube which is left over after anal sex? ..according to google
MrGiaf 2 weeks ago
this guy is not listening to anyone, he's clouding the issue with another one. what is up with this man, he is clouding his judgement with his religious belief. which if you have a secular government which it is supposed to be in the US.
thuggie1 2 weeks ago
Guess what Santorum, the fucking Bible endorses polygamy. Read the Bible before you quote the damn thing.
TheSeedTwoPointO 2 weeks ago
@TheSeedTwoPointO to true these people live in a world of double standers
thuggie1 2 weeks ago
Does Santorum, or those with like minded views on gay marriage, ever cite what teaching of Jesus is being dishonored by same sex marriage. The only Jesus relevant teaching I can think is the Lord’s Prayer where we are directed to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. I don’t want government judging the value of my marriage therefore I’m compelled to not judge those same sex couples who seek the same status for their union.
wagzel 2 weeks ago
@wagzel
Vote Obama 2012, Death to anyone who refuses to Obey !
AnatomicalALIGNMENT 2 weeks ago
He is so frothy.
wintereis57 2 weeks ago
plain stupid,this man must never be president.
whitymale 3 weeks ago
@whitymale It is almost certain that Romney will be the nominee. This will give some voters a very bad headache. Romney is the guy who signed into law the health insurance changes that Obama used as a model for his program. Romney really was copying an old Richard Nixon idea but most people won't remember back that far so Romney will get the blame. So people will either have to vote for this guy or that guy who did basically the same thing.
knowledgemonger 2 weeks ago
@knowledgemonger
Vote Obama 2012, Gays are superior ! Homosexuals should have more rights than anyone else
AnatomicalALIGNMENT 2 weeks ago
@whitymale
Are you Gay ? cant tell from your comment, but you definitely sound like an uneducated Moron.
AnatomicalALIGNMENT 2 weeks ago
So, I don't agree with him (gay marriage should be legal), but I respect his use of the Socratic method and can see his reasoning: "if the reason that gay marriage should be legal is that it brings about 'happiness' - which is each person has an undeniable right to pursue happiness- than why not a group of people who want to marry?" I would argue, the answer is that a marriage of multiple people alienates another undeniable right - equality... don't bash the guy for being rational.
atridder 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh you mean the guy who wants the government in all of our bedrooms? Really? That guy?
Give me a break! I think I've had enough government thank you very much! NEXT!!
LIBERTYALONE 3 weeks ago
I voted for him yesterday
jayhawk88z 3 weeks ago
@jayhawk88z
I'm sorry for you.
LIBERTYALONE 3 weeks ago
@jayhawk88z There's no accounting for taste.
wintereis57 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
jayhawk88z 3 weeks ago
Lol people are blind Rick. you can tell how dumb she is simply how she formulates a sentence. Go Rick!
HardenedShield 3 weeks ago
What an idiot.
forrestschaeffer 3 weeks ago
Awful people on both sides of the argument.
Gales99 3 weeks ago
There is no difference when it comes to Individual rights - the only true rights. No one can dictate who someone can form a relationship with - whatever the relationship - if that person's choice does not inflict on the Individual rights of others. Polygamy does not inherently do that.
State recognition of these relationships is a different issue and it only has to do with rights as far as if its' endorsement of incorporation is at the expense of the Individual.
FoundInBetween 3 weeks ago
The timeless Chewbacca Defense, confuse the audience by making an illogical aspect seem relevant to the issue.
BTW, does anyone else remember that alien ship-doctor from StarTrek TNG who had several wives, who also had several husbands, who also had several wives and so-on and so-forth...
neferiusnexus 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
haha, he's obviously FOR polygamy rofl..hahaha...I'm for it!! polygamy is the way of the future!!
crazychubba 3 weeks ago
Santorum is getting a bad rap because he's asking a legit question: He is testing the foundation of the lady's question based on her own moral definition by using that same moral definition for another case for marriage. He is not comparing gay marriage to polygamy, he's asking, based on the moral foundation given, why isn't that right as well? The lady says it's different, and Santorum wants to know why based on the definition she gave? It shows inconsistency and hypocrisy on the lady.
2timothy23 3 weeks ago
@2timothy23 It's impossible to make a perfectly consistent and thought-out argument in that setting. The question was not about polygamy, it was about same-sex marriage. He couldn't come up with a valid reason for his bigoted homophobia, so instead he just appeals to the purely emotional reaction people have against polygamy. To modify his comment, "if it's ok for opposite sexes, then you have to differentiate between same sexes". He didn't do that. He didn't address the argument.
PBDPBD 3 weeks ago
@PBDPBD Santorum was going to give a valid reason, but your own comments show why he could not; you already named him a bigot and homophobia, so anything he said would be labeled that. He had to address the moral foundation of same-sex marriage, yet they shouted him down. He tried to show that those that have a moral foundation of thinking it's right don't think polygamy-valid marriage for those that think it too is right-is right. Why not? It's inconsistent.
2timothy23 3 weeks ago
@2timothy23 You can read minds now? how do you know he was going to give a valid reason? I labeled him that because of the countless things he has said before. It frankly doesn't matter the woman was inconsistent. People can be stupid, but that doesn't invalidate the conclusions they derive. It would have been far easier for him to just say how same-sex marriage harms anyone (for example), but instead he made a red herring/ad hominem. Specifically, the fallacy of tu quoque.
PBDPBD 3 weeks ago
@PBDPBD I don't have the ability to read minds, but based on what he said in the video, I could logically conclude where he was going. And inconsistency does matter, because the very marriage she tried to defend by her reasoning she rejects for polygamy. She defines marriage as the same sex marrying, but where does she get the moral authority to define marriage that way and others can't define marriage to include polygamy? This is logical reasoning, not emotional rants.
2timothy23 3 weeks ago
@2timothy23 Logical reasoning? Look up the "tu quoque" fallacy. Your entire argument is a logical fallacy. She was NOT talking about polygamy, she was talking about same-sex marriage. For Santorum to IGNORE that fact and focus on polygamy is a fallacy. Also look up "slippery slope". Polygamy is a very different thing from monogamy, with lots of legal, sociological, psychological, and other consequences. You are NOT arguing against any kind of monogamy when you argue against polygamy
PBDPBD 3 weeks ago
@PBDPBD "Polygamy is a very different thing from monogamy, with lots of legal, sociological, psychological, and other consequences." Different for you, but for the polygamist it's valid marriage. Again, you're defining marriage based on your preference. It doesn't make a difference if marriage is between the same sex or multiple partners if the person who defines it prefers it. No absolutes, so you set the stage. This was Santorum's point, but you disregard it, so that's that.
2timothy23 3 weeks ago
@2timothy23 If you can't comprehend the simple and obvious fact that monogamy is very different from polygamy, and hence arguing against it says nothing about monogamy, then we won't get anywhere. ...By invoking the bible when arguing against providing basic rights to people, you are directly contradicting the very foundations of this country. It is not just morally wrong, it also flies in the face of the VERY FIRST amendment and much of the reason why the US is what it is.
PBDPBD 3 weeks ago
@PBDPBD We won't get anywhere because we have differing worldviews with different presuppositions. I originally made a comment, you replied to show me your counter view. I respect your right to have that view and express it, but it's contrary to mine. I share mine because it's the truth of God, you share yours based on the "truth" of man. We respectfully disagree. I invoke the Bible because my worldview is based on that. I don't throw it out to appease those that disagree. Have a good day.
2timothy23 3 weeks ago
@2timothy23 Lame cop out. My views aren't completely arbitrary ones that are mindlessly followed because I happened to be born in a certain family. They aren't based on a collection of books written and translated by mostly anonymous MEN. My views ARE based on objective values, facts, and reasons that are accessible to all people who try to understand them. They also happen to be amenable to reason and evidence. I give your views all the respect they are due, which is none.
PBDPBD 3 weeks ago
@PBDPBD In addition, if you think gay marriage is right, by what moral authority do you make that moral judgment? Based on what the lady said, it's based on the individuals involved and what they think is right or what makes them happy. If so, then anyone's definition of marriage is valid, even polygamy. This is the point. If you think polygamy is wrong, then doesn't that make you bigoted and phobia-like in your assessment of that view of marriage? Relative morality leads to inconsistency.
2timothy23 3 weeks ago
@2timothy23 Yes, SSM should be legal. The "moral authority" is basic empathy, secular ethics (eg. utilitarianism), and the principles found in the constitution. SSM increases happiness, has lots of economic and other benefits, and inconveniences no one. There is no reason for the government to interfere in our personal lives and tell us what individuals to marry or not to marry.
Polygamy is a completely different thing. You could argue that it decreases happiness and harms society.
PBDPBD 3 weeks ago
@PBDPBD So now SSM is good based on increased happiness, etc. Well, can't the polygamist use the same reasoning? How dare you deny their right to their own happiness because you think your definition of marriage is right? Sound familiar? This type of moral authority is relative because anyone can make that assumption about anything as long as they don't believe in an absolute authority. This is not sound or reasonable because it then makes SSM superior based on your own comment.
2timothy23 3 weeks ago
@2timothy23 First off, I never said I was opposed to polygamy. My position about it would depend on a wide variety of factors, and I would need to do more research, but that's precisely the point. Polygamy is NOT the same thing as monogamy. And once again, "So tell me, what basis do YOU (presumably) argue we have for allowing opposite-sex people to marry but not same-sex people?"
PBDPBD 3 weeks ago
@PBDPBD My authority is based on the very thing you say is irrelevant, The Bible, so, therefore, it means nothing to you. But your opinion or belief in the Bible doesn't validate absolute truth. God is Creator and sets the absolute standard for all things, but mankind will always reject it because that's called sin. We love our sin nature, so whatever floats our boats we will embrace. God created us and sets the standard for all things, even marriage. I'm sure you reject it, but it's true.
2timothy23 3 weeks ago
@2timothy23 So tell me, what basis do YOU (presumably) argue we have for allowing opposite-sex people to marry but not same-sex people? And before you invoke the bible, the bible is completely irrelevant. We aren't talking about churches marrying people (who should be free to refuse to marry interracial couples or anyone else IMO), we are talking about the secular legal contract (and associated benefits) that is issued by the US government.
PBDPBD 3 weeks ago
@2timothy23 , what is morality relative to? What is the starting point on which to base moral concepts?
ffairlane57 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
haha, he's obviously FOR polygamy rofl..hahaha...I'm for it!! polygamy is the way of the future!!
crazychubba 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
crazychubba 3 weeks ago
Wow, Santorum is dumb. What a perfect candidate for fundamentalist conservatives.
phalsebob 4 weeks ago
@phalsebob Yes, it looks like heads will explode. They will have to either vote for the Mormon or the guy they try to tell people is a muslim. It doesn't look like the one with way too many wives will be the nominee. Maybe the party can get its act together for 2016. As it is, the powers that be decided not to support the best options. Perhaps Huntsman was just a little too smart to be controlled. Perhaps the fact that he is a mormon matters to them.
knowledgemonger 3 weeks ago
What a complete and utter fuck-wit!
bob005ish 1 month ago
@EmeraldView @PBDPBD the article from the WSJ is "No Need to Panic About Global Warming", feel free to read it with an open mind.
Nuby29 1 month ago
@Nuby29 I'll also note that most of the 16 scientists in the article have no formal training on climatology. There are chemists, engineers, geneticists, and others... but only a couple of climatologists. Weathermen are NOT climatologists by the way. Having said that, a bunch of non-experts talking about things they know nothing about could be 100% right. However, they're not. What they are saying is complete and utter BS. Notice how there are ZERO references? That's because it's BS.
PBDPBD 1 month ago
Yes, same-sex marriage is oké! Yes, polygamy based on equality & consent is oké!!! (Pieter Schultz, religious researcher, liberal, atheist)
meervoudigeliefde 1 month ago
@EmeraldView "Actually the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists after MANY years of study agree that not only is the earth warming, but human activity is a significant contributor to that." WRONG! search for 16-scientists-have-a-message-for-elected-officials-on-global-warming-drastic-action-unnecessary... "A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50+ yrs
Nuby29 1 month ago
@Nuby29 16 scientists? SIXTEEN scientists? Holy crap man. Do you have ANY idea, even the slightest idea, how many hundreds of thousands of scientists there are out there that have been saying the opposite? The IPCC alone represents 2,500 scientists. Of course, it summarizes the work of tens of thousand more scientists. The Academies of Science, also representing thousands of scientists from 32 countries, has also strongly urged the world to reduce CO2 emissions.
PBDPBD 1 month ago
@PBDPBD It's called "conventional ignorance". But 1st of all, I doubt that hundreds of thousands of scientists have studied global warming so that statement is absurd. But to my point, what you claim is that because most "scientists" support global warming that it must be true. The majority belief does NOT prove something is "right" or "wrong". And these 16 independent unbiased scientists report why, if you read the report. Its the same with Keynesian economics, another farce theory
Nuby29 1 month ago
@Nuby29 I was merely showing that your idiotic comments about there not being a consensus were clearly and objectively wrong. I never made the argument that climate change is occurring BECAUSE practically all experts in the field agree that it is. If you want to argue that, then fine... I'm quite familiar with the science involved. Anthropogenic climate change IS occurring, that is a fact. Not because all the experts say so, but because reality says so.
PBDPBD 1 month ago
@PBDPBD As a simple example, of the 10 hottest years on record (ie. directly measured from all over the world... and even from space), NINE are in the 2000's. To say that there is a "lack of global warming for well over 10 years now" is nothing short of a lie. They continue LYING by citing climategate. The quote was COMPLETELY taken out of context, just google it (the quote) and click the first result. And this is just an example- I can't address every point in youtube comments
PBDPBD 1 month ago
@PBDPBD And why don't you look at the other side of the picture. Like Mars temperature increasing. Venus has never measured hotter temperature. Our sun has never shown more solar activities. Yeah, there's probably some form of global warming. The temperatures don't lie, but saying it's men made is debatable. And there are independent studies in bio-domes where they increase the CO2 level, not only did the temperature not increase but more plants grew to counter act the CO2 level.
Nuby29 1 month ago
@Nuby29 Mars- mars has periodic changes in its orbit called Milankovitch cycles. We know EXACTLY why it's warming, it has absolutely nothing to do with the earth. Venus- it's been getting warmer for millenia. Why? because of the CO2 in its atmosphere. Nothing to do with either the sun or the earth. Sun- That is complete bullshit. Other than the past year or so, the sun was in a severe minimum, and the cycle is about 11 years long. We've known about global warming for decades.
PBDPBD 1 month ago
@Nuby29 In addition, we can measure the output of the sun DIRECTLY. It is NOT increasing over time at anywhere near the pace needed to account for the warming. Dozens of studies have looked for a link between the sun and warming- in short, IT IS NOT THERE. Increasing CO2 has a very small and short-lived effect on a limited type of plant growth. It is not sustained because CO2 is not a limiting nutrient. Look up "limiting nutrient". Fertilizer contains N and P for a reason.
PBDPBD 1 month ago
@Nuby29 As for your claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas... that's just sheer inanity. Countless experiments have been done showing that it is. We can measure it empirically and we also know exactly why it is. We can also empirically measure that CO2 concentrations have increased over the past few decades. Re: your other comment- Judging from the article, they are outright lying. Even their most basic claims can EASILY be refuted within 2 minutes of googling.
PBDPBD 1 month ago
@PBDPBD "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today." Are u claiming this is a lie?
Nuby29 1 month ago
@Nuby29 I didn't say that every single sentence was a lie. The reason CO2 is added to greenhouses is because the plants in greenhouses receive lots of fertilizer and other care. Thus, by providing them with the nutrients which would normally be limiting, they make CO2 a limiting nutrient. However, this is only the case under VERY artificial situations, and CO2 is nowhere near being a limiting nutrient for the vast majority of the biosphere.
PBDPBD 1 month ago
@Nuby29 The fact is that yes, CO2 IS a pollutant, as well as absolutely necessary for all macroscopic life on earth. It is indispensable at the right quantities, but there is ALWAYS a level at which good things become bad. For example, CO2 can be lethal. Small rodents and other animals are routinely euthanized by pouring CO2 into their enclosures. The mechanism is completely different, but too much CO2 on the atmosphere does have negative effects on human life on earth.
PBDPBD 1 month ago
@Nuby29 CO2 is also bad because it increases the acidity of the oceans. When CO2 dissolves in the ocean, it produces carbonic acid. This has been directly measured, and it amounts to a change of 30% in acidity. This has lots of negative effects, but I'll just mention one example: Most mollusks, corals, forams, sea stars, and many other animals depend on skeletons made out of calcium carbonate. Acidification makes it much more difficult for it to be deposited, and that lowers their health
PBDPBD 1 month ago
@PBDPBD Notice how your article doesn't make any mention whatsoever of ocean acidification? That's because they don't care about the science. They know that 99% of the people reading it don't have a clue about the science, so they felt no need to actually address it. If they actually cared about the science, they would have published their article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or would have at least included a reference or two so that we could check on their claims.
PBDPBD 1 month ago
@PBDPBD "idiotic comments" ok smarty pants, why don't you email Claude Allegre, director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, William Happer professor of physics Princeton, Richard Lindzen professor of atmospheric sciences MIT, Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut, Michael Kelly, professor of technology, Univ of Cambridge, William Nordhaus Yale economist, and debate them on why they're wrong. I'm sure you know more than they do. lol. You're an arrogant prick who knows nothing
Nuby29 1 month ago
@Nuby29 The consensus IS overwhelming. The earth IS warming, and it IS due almost exclusively to human activity. I could go on citing the clear statements that different scientific organizations have said about this, but suffice it to say that there is not a single scientific organization that doesn't accept anthropogenic climate change. In addition, reviewing the scientific literature yields a similar result. There are so few scientific papers arguing against ACC that they're negligible
PBDPBD 1 month ago
I understand the point that Santorum is trying to make. That's why I say we make polygamy legal. DUH!
AudioFuelProd 1 month ago
@AudioFuelProd In the bible lots of people had multiple wives. It is sort of surprising to see Santorum saying that polygamy is a bad thing. He seems to be one of those "lets return to the good old days" sort who suggests that there was some time in the past that was better than today. Lots of people get that impression partly because their parents worried about the bad stuff for them when they were children and partly because history ignores a lot of real life things.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
@AudioFuelProd In the bible lots of people had multiple wives. It is sort of surprising to see Santorum saying that polygamy is a bad thing. He seems to be one of those "lets return to the good old days" sort who suggests that there was some time in the past that was better than today. Lots of people get that impression partly because their parents worried about the bad stuff for them when they were children and partly because history ignores a lot of real life things.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
Just answer the question you douche !
420smurf59 1 month ago
larry was right you can not fix stupid
nsdtr01 1 month ago
@nsdtr01 "larry was right you can not fix stupid". It was Ron White's line no Larry's.
It was about selecting an mate. I agree. I have met people with stupid husbands or wives. It really seems to me to be a miserable way to live.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
@knowledgemonger i stand corrected thank you - as for santorum i really would not want him for my attorney
nsdtr01 1 month ago
Santorum can go hang himself. Fuck that bigot bastard.
-from the Blah people.
prettyboy1970 1 month ago
Fuckin douche bag
JR9782 1 month ago
Santorum is just such santorum.
joethemoproductions 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SANTORUM LOVES TO KILL LIFE.
cagle.com/2011/06/rick-santorum-when-the-anti-choice-choose
Santorum let his Wife have Abortion, Santorum LOVES Wars & Death, Santorum LOVES to KILL Iran Scientists, Kill Abortion Doctors, CIA Killing Americans, Santorum Loves Death Penalty for Prisoners, Santorum Loves to Kill & Eat Animals, Santorum Voted to Cut Every Social & Welfare Program which helped the poor, helped women, girls, immigrants, and children. Santorum Voted to Cut Education and Food Aid Programs.
halcyon0830 1 month ago
If this idiot becomes president im moving to another country.
QCREIGN 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do not be afraid to be free.
Ring the Liberty Bell.
Vote for Ron Paul 2012
PS: Fight SOPA
drac060 1 month ago
@AmbientMalice How is that ironic?
jhonen32629 1 month ago
This is the most inane argument ever. It's not even apples and oranges.
"If it is okay for two, then why is it not okay for three?"
Santorum, you stupid pile of shit, the same reasoning would apply to heterosexual marriage...
Also, the bible says something about divorce too. And you did too, before leaving your wife for a younger woman. I guess your religion has to be enforced only when it doesn't stop you from sleeping with whoever you like.
ThisOneIsTaken 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Isn't it ironic how the biggest supporters of democracy were the first to kick and scream when Prop 8 passed?
AmbientMalice 1 month ago
PardonMyZinger - Intolerant leftist, just like Hitler, rejected marriage, strengthened planned parenthood, and probably hates his ignorant pro marriage ancestors.
MoBushin04 1 month ago
He's right for the wrong reasons. The problem is marriage itself. We have to evolve out of it as a species.
TheDrCynic 1 month ago
i dont care if its 2 or 20 people. they should all be able to get married if that's what they want.
quadcorepiracy 1 month ago
what a fucking douchebag... Just sayin'
PardonMyZinger 1 month ago 2
I would like to see your proof BTW. You know that the "hidden variable" theory was disproved experimentally. Your proof has to explain those results.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
Another massacring of reason and logic by an inept politician. This is someone who could potentially be president?
paleflarelight 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
• onPaulRonPaul___RonPaulRonPau¬¬¬¬¬¬l___RonPaul___RonPaulRonP¬a¬u¬l
RonPaulRonPaul___RonPaulRonPau¬¬¬¬¬¬l___RonPaul___RonPaulRonP¬a¬u¬l
_______RonPaul___Ron_______Pau¬¬¬¬¬¬l___RonPaul__________RonP¬a¬u¬l
_______RonPaul___Ron_______Pau¬¬¬¬¬¬l___RonPaul__________RonP¬a¬u¬l
RonPaulRonPaul___Ron_______Pau¬¬¬¬¬¬l___RonPaul___RonPaulRonP¬a¬u¬l
RonPaul__________Ron_______Pau¬¬¬¬¬¬l___RonPaul___RonPaul____¬_¬_¬_
RonPaulRonPaul___RonPaulRonPau¬¬¬¬¬¬l___RonPaul___RonPaulRonP¬a¬u¬l
holywdtughguy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
News today -
Wife of pro-life presidential candidate Rick Santorum had love affair with abortion doctor 40 years her senior ... who was also the same doctor that delivered her as a baby !
Pro-life campaigner, 51, was a 22 yo nursing student when she fell in love with 63 yo father of six
Santorum believes abortion practitioners should face 'criminal charges'
Karen Santorum, who, like her husband, opposes abortion even in cases of rape, and birth control, has yet to comment.
Communist2012 1 month ago
Holy shit this audience is extremely stupid and ignorant.
oblivionspawn07 1 month ago 2
If we go off his logic, A man and woman shouldn't marry either, because that would lead to a man and 2 women, or a woman and 2 men. By his reasoning a heterosexual marriage is a could lead to heterosexual polygamy.
99razorsharpe 1 month ago
It is irrelevant about three or more people wanting to get married because it is about marriage equality. We are wanting the legal right for TWO people who love each other, regardless of their sexuality, to have the opportunity to get married if they wish.
Have more then two people in a marriage is a whole different issue, one that would require a complete rewrite of marriage laws. Gay marriage already fits within the legal frame work of the current marriage laws.
99razorsharpe 1 month ago
@99razorsharpe
There's no such thing as "marriage equality." You either marry or you don't.
mytruepower2 1 month ago
1:58 you just have to use reasoning but apparently it doesn't have to be rational.
93crimsonflame 1 month ago
There are many christian denominations that perform same sex marriages, e.g. Quakers. They have the same bible as you do. You don’t really think that god is telling them something different than he is telling you, do you? You can be certain that if god hates all the same people you hate that you have created god in your own image. Don’t justify your homophobic hate by blaming god. You are responsible for your own irrational prejudices.
shenadoa 1 month ago
@shenadoa
To the Friends, or "Quakers", as you call them, gay sex is a deadly sin, for that's what the Bible says (Romans 1:8-32).
There are half a million Friends in the world, only a few thousand of them in the UK, and a few hundred in Australia/New Zealand. Of the latter, a tiny minority of less than 10% each met and approved "unanimously" -- lol -- a motion that gay marriages should be allowed.
Now, who is irrational?
schlagerhansi 1 month ago
God damn the people in the audience are stupid as hell. He was asking a very relevant question and those dumbasses just couldn't wrap their tiny minds around the point he was making.
oblivionspawn07 1 month ago
This is plain silly, stupid, waste of time. Yes - fine with me you foolish, pretentious politician. Marry as many people as you want. Why would anyone care if people want to be polygamists? Freedom right? That's what we want.Three men together. Fine - freedom to enter into a contractual relationship recognized by the state. You don’t have to call it “marriage.” As far as I’m concerned the state should get the hell out of the marriage business and engage in degrees of contractual relationships.
DickieTT 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It would appear that the Prime Minister of India - Manmohan Singh, and the ruling Congress party leader Sonia Gandhi have joined forces with the most dreaded force known to man - Lawyers, and are now vying for the title of 'The Biggest Puddle of Santorum in India'.
Maybe Santorum Americanus should join forces with Santorum Indicum and jointly sue the likes of Google, Yahoo, and Facebook. We can call it 'The Grand Santorum Technicum'!
I almost forgot to say, Mmmm... frothy!
ThatHairyCanadian 1 month ago
He's very silly.
Polyamourous marriages exist in the bible but they're bad
Gay marriages arent in the bible but they're bad too.
I give up
KehBay 1 month ago
@KehBay Fortunately, Santorum has no chance of becoming the nominee. I don't want to see the republican party laughed right out of the election, and that is what would happen if he was put up. He is just way to weird to get elected. Romney will almost certainly lose to Obama and is a slime-ball but at least he is not outright funny. I really think that it is time for rational people to give up on the party and start a new one.
knowledgemonger 1 month ago
In order to implement gay marriage one need only eliminate the laws prohibiting it. On the other hand, polygamy opens up many potential issues with regard to who inherits after a death, who gets Social Security survivor benefits, who gets custody of children, and many more. Marriage grants benefits unique to two individuals - effectively designating the spouse as the most important person legally in your life. Gay marriages still maintain this aspect, while polygamous ones do not. Next question?
pkiverson 1 month ago
Don't people with more liberal ideology generally advocate a separation of church and state? If so, marriage is a religious ceremony. Instead of protesting for gay marriages to be legalized, shouldn't they be protesting for the state to stop recognizing marriages all together?
It would allow people to judge themselves and others as they see fit. A person can claim to be married, and another person can claim that the same person isn't married.
Why don't we try this instead?
davidhudman 1 month ago
@davidhudman
Because married people expect certain privileges from the state for being married, e.g. widow pensions, tax exemptions pp.
schlagerhansi 1 month ago
@davidhudman There are many people who do not believe in your primitive religious superstitions who marry. Church marriages are not legal in the US unless the state issues a marriage license. Just like morality, religions have never had a monopoly on marriage.
shenadoa 1 month ago
bad job of sidestepping the question, not a progressive thinker, not fully-qualified to be the president of a country.. Better then bush.
JamesastanWAW 1 month ago
Santorum is right! If we can 'redefine marriage' once, whats to stop us from redefining it again?
kokotepeyac 1 month ago
@kokotepeyac Santorum during Civil Rights: If we allow black people to vote, it will mean that they will want to vote twice, then we will have to allow dogs to vote
shenadoa 1 month ago
There are many christian denominations that perform same sex marriages. They have the same bible as you do. You don’t really think that god is telling them something different than he is telling you, do you? You can be certain that if god hates all the same people as you do that you have created god in your own image. Don’t justify your homophobic hate by blaming god. You are responsible for your own irrational prejudices.
shenadoa 1 month ago
@shenadoa
yeah, but while there are many cases of polygamy mentioned in the Bible, I didn't find any case of same sex marriage. Seems that some people can't read properly...
schlagerhansi 1 month ago
@schlagerhansi Neither is a woman's right to vote. The bible promotes slavery. There is no mention of civil or human rights, The bible is a fairy tale.
shenadoa 1 month ago
@shenadoa
Neither is a man's right to vote. So what? Any book that doesn't mention civil, or human rights, or the right to vote, is a fairy tale?!?
schlagerhansi 1 month ago