From the NY Daily News:
Rick Santorum isn't exactly getting the warm welcome he received in Iowa.
Full post here.The Republican presidential candidate was booed Thursday in Concord, N.H., following an edgy back-and-forth with college students about same-sex marriage.The drama started after a student asked Santorum why his definition equality did not include marriage for gay couples, which is legal in the Granite State.
you need to take down adsense. rick's adword buys are giving his campaign site a big ad on here. don't help this tool...
ReplyDeleteThank you, Concord, N.H.!
ReplyDeleteThe reason why he said this is because Romney- the top GOP candidate, is a Mormon, and Mormons support polygamy. What Santorum is trying to argue is "Don't let Romney become President of the United States because he will give homosexuals gay rights". Except people seem not to realize this.
ReplyDeleteJust a login to help keep the site popular. I usually vote R, sometimes L, rarely D, but Frothy Mixture can't do anything to help the country or his party.
ReplyDeleteI note you're getting attacked for your "Agenda" by people who can't seem to grasp that HIS agenda came first.
Larg: hah. I'm sure he IS trying to say that, as ridiculous as it is. That's just how delusional and incoherent he is.
Watched the whole video at the NH college. A basic course in Logic (which Mr. Santorum seems to espouse) would point out that he has committed numerous Fallacies of Reasoning during his argument, specifically jumping to the "what would stop three people from marrying?" argument. This is called the Slippery Slope fallacy. Santorum has jumped to an absurd assertion that legalizing gay marriage would then lead to polygamy without an argument supporting that assertion. It is a fallacy of logic to assume legalizing marriage for gay couples would necessarily lead to polygamy (straight or gay). Poor reasoning for a "lawyer".
ReplyDeleteI really don't see the problem with polygamy, either.
ReplyDeleteagreed MKJG, and his obvious fear of logic was further evidenced by badgering the questioners with his well-rehearsed talking points and failure to answer their questions with anything other than his own "what ifs" and "well, what about"s. he would have gotten an F in any debate class i was a part of, and if this is the only way he can defend something which is so close to the core of his values there is nothing redeemable about him as a leader.
ReplyDelete