Republican Rick Santorum: NHS devastated Britain
Discussion
t.
Santorum angered The Internet, and got his named redefined as his reward.
In a debate about gay marriage, he basically equated homosexual sex with bestiality and pedarasty:
They came up with "Santorum, n. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.", and Savage set up a website about it.
And it's now the top result when you enter "Santorum" into Google. And Google have refused to modify their search results.
Full story on Wikipedia, completely SFW, here.
In a debate about gay marriage, he basically equated homosexual sex with bestiality and pedarasty:
Rick Santorum said:
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything… It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution... You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong healthy families... In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.
Dan Savage of The Stranger Magazine, a sex advice columnist (I recommend you read his "Savage Love" column at The Stranger, although perhaps not at work. It's very entertaining and informative) asked his readers for a definition of the word "Santorum" that would appropriately offend the senator.They came up with "Santorum, n. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.", and Savage set up a website about it.
And it's now the top result when you enter "Santorum" into Google. And Google have refused to modify their search results.
Full story on Wikipedia, completely SFW, here.
He seems to have a chronic case of foot-in-mouth disease:
source
Rick Santorum said:
I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong with a quote like that?source
CommanderJameson said:
Dan Savage of The Stranger Magazine, a sex advice columnist (I recommend you read his "Savage Love" column at The Stranger, although perhaps not at work. It's very entertaining and informative) asked his readers for a definition of the word "Santorum" that would appropriately offend the senator.
They came up with "Santorum, n. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.", and Savage set up a website about it.
And it's now the top result when you enter "Santorum" into Google. And Google have refused to modify their search results.
Full story on Wikipedia, completely SFW, here.
They came up with "Santorum, n. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.", and Savage set up a website about it.
And it's now the top result when you enter "Santorum" into Google. And Google have refused to modify their search results.
Full story on Wikipedia, completely SFW, here.
CommanderJameson said:
Dan Savage of The Stranger Magazine, a sex advice columnist (I recommend you read his "Savage Love" column at The Stranger, although perhaps not at work. It's very entertaining and informative) asked his readers for a definition of the word "Santorum" that would appropriately offend the senator.
They came up with "Santorum, n. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.", and Savage set up a website about it.
Sadly, they've come up short - I hear it's the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that's offended by being so named...They came up with "Santorum, n. The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.", and Savage set up a website about it.
The statement is ludicrous and flies in the fact of history – so a typical politician’s statement.
What cost Britain its empire, at least that bit of it still in existence in 1939, was the war and the way we had to pay for American aid. It broke us.
After the war the only valuable bit of the Empire that was left was India and we’d already promised them independence if they helped us. There was Southern Rhodesia of course, but even then it cost more keep it than it was worth. A bit like Wales.
The NHS meant guaranteed income for doctors. Before the war they were often near poverty themselves. The barter system was the normal method of payment down our way. They were, evidently, all Irish in my area of London. They were the only ones who would accept the poor wages. Our doctor, O’Hara, had a private income. His car, a pre-war Rover, was the only one that frequented our street without the risk of it being damaged or stolen.
I had an ‘aunt’, a second cousin in fact, who was the local midwife before, during and for a little while after the war. There were also some suggestions she was the local abortionist as well but this was never confirmed. Or denied either. The one thing she was not was trained apart from being a sort of nursing auxiliary during the war.
Child mortality dropped considerably after the war and our life expectancy increased steadily. There were suggestions some years ago that the better diet during the war is what increased lifespan as if the poor were filling up on sweets and burgers. What changed was the NHS.
The problem with it now is the cost of sophisticated treatment and the amount of money paid to those which produce the chemicals. There would appear to be no way out of this. Something has to change. But the fact is that many of use today owe our lives to the NHS. My paternal grandmother lost eight sons to infant death. She might have lost daughters as well but these were never spoken of.
It should also be remembered that the NHS gave a foundation for research. At times Britain led the world in certain medical procedures.
For all its faults, and there are many, the Empire’s blood is not in any way on the NHS’ hands.
Santorum's statement was stupid and by someone whom, one assumes, is stupid.
What cost Britain its empire, at least that bit of it still in existence in 1939, was the war and the way we had to pay for American aid. It broke us.
After the war the only valuable bit of the Empire that was left was India and we’d already promised them independence if they helped us. There was Southern Rhodesia of course, but even then it cost more keep it than it was worth. A bit like Wales.
The NHS meant guaranteed income for doctors. Before the war they were often near poverty themselves. The barter system was the normal method of payment down our way. They were, evidently, all Irish in my area of London. They were the only ones who would accept the poor wages. Our doctor, O’Hara, had a private income. His car, a pre-war Rover, was the only one that frequented our street without the risk of it being damaged or stolen.
I had an ‘aunt’, a second cousin in fact, who was the local midwife before, during and for a little while after the war. There were also some suggestions she was the local abortionist as well but this was never confirmed. Or denied either. The one thing she was not was trained apart from being a sort of nursing auxiliary during the war.
Child mortality dropped considerably after the war and our life expectancy increased steadily. There were suggestions some years ago that the better diet during the war is what increased lifespan as if the poor were filling up on sweets and burgers. What changed was the NHS.
The problem with it now is the cost of sophisticated treatment and the amount of money paid to those which produce the chemicals. There would appear to be no way out of this. Something has to change. But the fact is that many of use today owe our lives to the NHS. My paternal grandmother lost eight sons to infant death. She might have lost daughters as well but these were never spoken of.
It should also be remembered that the NHS gave a foundation for research. At times Britain led the world in certain medical procedures.
For all its faults, and there are many, the Empire’s blood is not in any way on the NHS’ hands.
Santorum's statement was stupid and by someone whom, one assumes, is stupid.
An oldie but a goodie. Santorum attempts to cast doubt on evolution
He also says the scientific community is "afraid of discussion" about god in classrooms:
Having this bloke in charge of the US would be hilarious for about five minutes and terrifying for the balance of his term.
The Rickster said:
In recent years, evidence of the complex circuits, miniature machines, sophisticated feedback loops, and digital information inside the cell has enabled scientists to poke holes in the principle evidence used to support evolution and therefore, more and more respected biologists are entering the debate as to the plausibility of evolution.
We've done evolution to death on PH, but suffice to say that if there's a scientific theory that's got hard evidence out the wazoo, it's evolution.He also says the scientific community is "afraid of discussion" about god in classrooms:
Article said:
Santorum says that "science will only allow things in the classroom that are consistent with a non-creator idea of how we got here, as if somehow or another that's scientific.” He says, “Well, maybe the science points to the fact that maybe science doesn't explain all these things” and “It's worth the debate [in the classrooms].”
sourceHaving this bloke in charge of the US would be hilarious for about five minutes and terrifying for the balance of his term.
CommanderJameson said:
Having this bloke in charge of the US would be hilarious for about five minutes and terrifying for the balance of his term.
He seems like a nice boy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-elect...
Derek Smith said:
CommanderJameson said:
Having this bloke in charge of the US would be hilarious for about five minutes and terrifying for the balance of his term.
He seems like a nice boy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-elect...
That man is a retarded, ignorant religious nutjob. He champions 'intelligent design', saying it should be taught in schools and defends abuse of children by Catholic priests. Having said that, he doesn't stand out amongst the candidates or indeed most US political figures who are almost to a man defective in some major fashion.
Quite funny that he and his supporters call him "a Winston Churchill of our day".
Never mind that Churchill was one of the early supporters for Beveridge's National Health Service (well before Labour decided it was a priority) nor even his role in the creation of the original welfare state under Lloyd George.
Never mind that Churchill was one of the early supporters for Beveridge's National Health Service (well before Labour decided it was a priority) nor even his role in the creation of the original welfare state under Lloyd George.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff