westguy76 Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Santorum? He's the genius that came to the conclusion that if you allow gay marriage people will want to marry their dogs next. One of the deep thinkers of our time.i think it was more along the lines of relating sodomy to beastiality, saying there is not a huge gap between the two acts, or at least thats how i took it. he just didn't have the balls or freedom to say that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 i think it was more along the lines of relating sodomy to beastiality, saying there is not a huge gap between the two acts, or at least thats how i took it. he just didn't have the balls or freedom to say thatIt was along the line of equating gays to "man on dog" and pedophiles. This is his not so subliminal message:SANTORUM: Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. 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. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Well, everyone wondered why the gov't. wasn't saying anything. Now we know.http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/These are pre 1991 munitions, likely WMDs that the US gave to Iraq to use against Iran in the 80s. Hard to brag about those. Remember, the argument was that Saddam was making his own. 20 year old, degenerated munitions don't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGraspo Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 It aint just the liberal biased media (so called). It isn't being covered ANYWHERE today. Got some coverage yesterday not today. They all must have realized there wasn't much to the story and what a political stunt this was on Santorum's part. I hope that loser gets spanked next November.Back on track here....Now there saying that these weapons seem to date back to the Iran/Iraq War. And that the Department of defense states that "these are not the weapons that we went to war for" that these "WMDs" are essentially harmlessIt appears that Santorum is getting his butt spanked(poll wise) which does explain his claim about the WMDs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncoby Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Back on track here....Now there saying that these weapons seem to date back to the Iran/Iraq War. And that the Department of defense states that "these are not the weapons that we went to war for" that these "WMDs" are essentially harmlessIt appears that Santorum is getting his butt spanked(poll wise) which does explain his claim about the WMDsYep. The only thing they found was another way to embarrass the living hell out of the Republican party. You know they have egg on their face when Fox calls them on it! Santorum was PUNKED big time!Someone is having a hell of a laugh.But not the 2500+ families of those who died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Back on track here....Now there saying that these weapons seem to date back to the Iran/Iraq War. And that the Department of defense states that "these are not the weapons that we went to war for" that these "WMDs" are essentially harmlessTold you there was a reason The White House wasn't chiming in,not exactly what they were looking for, but they were there, and Iraq claims to have "forgotten" about these. The Dems. are calling them "harmless". If you call dying form severe skin blisters and lungs exploding "harmless" allrightythen. I don't think anyone calling them "harmless" would want one as a souveneir of their visit to Iraq. Sarin gas doesn't degrade all that well, and the mustard gas has "turned to jelly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Yep. The only thing they found was another way to embarrass the living hell out of the Republican party. You know they have egg on their face when Fox calls them on it! Santorum was PUNKED big time!Someone is having a hell of a laugh.But not the 2500+ families of those who died.I'm not sure you can embarrass Republicans. Reference the preceding post, bearing in mind that these are chemicals that the United States gave to Saddam. I've heard of "Indian Givers", but this is a bit much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmm Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Skeptical of Story.Skeptical of FOX News. Probably planted weapons, if anything. Planted by the US Government so they dont look like retards. Hey its possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston1stWordOnTheMoon Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Skeptical of Story.Skeptical of FOX News. Probably planted weapons, if anything. Planted by the US Government so they dont look like retards. Hey its possible.Is this latest edition of Iran news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncoby Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Is this latest edition of Iran news?oops. sorry they looked like retards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Is this latest edition of Iran news?Yes it is. Absolutly. You should work for FAUXNuz and uncover even MORE conspiracys!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 "Fool me once, shame on-shame on you. Fool me-you can't get fooled again."GW BushI love that song! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmm Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Is this latest edition of Iran news?Why not? It wouldnt be the first time America hid events to influence public policy. Historians say the USA knew about the impeding attack on Pearl Harbor but they didnt do a thing. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, Public Policy favored going to war on the side of England. Hey, witholding key information and sacrificing the lives of your countrymen to influence public policy! I dont see why the US wouldnt plant WMDs in Iraq to save face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncoby Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Why not? It wouldnt be the first time America hid events to influence public policy. Historians say the USA knew about the impeding attack on Pearl Harbor but they didnt do a thing. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, Public Policy favored going to war on the side of England. Hey, witholding key information and sacrificing the lives of your countrymen to influence public policy! I dont see why the US wouldnt plant WMDs in Iraq to save face.Talk about having WMDs on his face. As well as all the premature postjaculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted June 25, 2006 Share Posted June 25, 2006 Gawd, what a bunch of whiney babies.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brijonmang Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Gawd, what a bunch of whiney babies.... Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Gawd, what a bunch of whiney babies.... Who, Santorum? Yeah, I'm with you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncoby Posted June 26, 2006 Share Posted June 26, 2006 Who, Santorum? Yeah, I'm with you there.Totally agree. He has wmds on his face now.Whiny little *&^% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.