Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua!

Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua.com,  Un foro donde se discute la Politica Boricua aparte de otros temas de actualidad e interes.  Aqui existe la mayor libertad de expresion donde pueden debatir libremente.  Registrate!

 
Como la mayoria de las comunidades en linea necesita registrarse para poder postear en nuestra comunidad, pero no se preocupe esto es un proceso simple que solo requiere minima informacion. Sea parte de Cafe Boricua creando una cuenta con nosotros.  Puede logearse con su cuenta de Facebook o Twitter.

  • Comienze nuevos temas y responda a otros
  • Subscribirse a temas y foros y recibir actualizaciones automaticas.
  • Crea su propio perfil y haga nuevas amistades.
  • Comparta sus posteos o temas en las redes sociales.
  • Personalize su experiencia aqui.
  • Crea una encuesta!   Una gallery de fotos.  Anuncie un evento. 

Animate a participar en nuestro foro boricua!


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mimapr

Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem

27 posts in this topic

El pobre Rick Santorum lleva una guerra con google, porque cuando le das google a su apellido sale lo siguiente..... "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." :hysterical:

Por cierto esto le contesto google al pendango......
[color=#000000][left]

[b]In response, a Google spokesman told CNN in an email, “Google's search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Web."[/b]

[b]"Users who want content removed should contact the webmaster of the page directly. Once the webmaster takes the page down from the Web, it will be removed from Google's search results through our usual crawling process."[/b]
[b]"We do not remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines.”[/b]

Translation: Go pound sand, Rick.



[/left][/color]


[b] Rick Santorum's Anal Sex Problem[/b]






[img]http://mjcdn.motherjones.com/preset_12/SANTORUM_300x200.gif[/img] Illustration: Zina Saunders

Why Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum can't beat his Google troubles.
—By [url="/authors/stephanie-mencimer"]Stephanie Mencimer[/url]

Rick Santorum would very much like to be president. For the past few years, he [url="http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/rick-santorum-president"]has been diligently appearing[/url] at the sorts of conservative events—the Values Voters Summit, the Conservative Political Action Conference—where aspiring Republican candidates are expected to show up. But before he starts printing "Santorum 2012" bumper stickers, there's one issue the former GOP senator and his strategists need to address.

You see, Santorum has what you might call a Google problem. For voters who decide to look him up online, one of the top three search results is usually the site [url="http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/"]SpreadingSantorum.com[/url], which explains that Santorum's last name is a sexual neologism for "the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

[b]Santorum's problem got its start back in 2003[/b], when the then-senator from Pennsylvania[b][color=#ff0000] [/color][url="http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+Excerpt+from+Santorum+interview&expire=&urlID=6086103&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm&partnerID=1660"][color=#ff0000]compared homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia[/color][/url][color=#ff0000],[/color][/b] saying the "definition of marriage" has never included "man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

The ensuing controversy prompted syndicated sex columnist Dan Savage, who's gay, to start a contest, soliciting reader suggestions for slang terms to "memorialize the scandal." The winner [url="http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=14566&mode=print"]came up with[/url] the "frothy mixture" idea, Savage launched a website, and a meme was born. Even though mainstream news outlets would never link to it, Savage's site rose in the Google rankings, thanks in part to bloggers who posted Santorum-related news on the site or linked to it from their blogs. Eventually it [url="http://www.americas-foundation.org/welcome.cfm"]eclipsed Santorum's own campaign site[/url] in search results; some observers even suggested it may have contributed to Santorum's crushing 18-point defeat in his 2006 campaign against Bob Casey.


[b]Savage says his site hasn't been updated for years, yet it remains entrenched in the Google rankings. Not even Santorum's ascent as a Fox News contributor or his early campaign swings through the key primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire have managed to bury it. With Google results like this, what's an aspiring presidential candidate to do?[/b]

I wanted to ask Santorum whether he had a strategy for scrubbing his Web presence, but he didn't return my calls. So instead, I asked a few experts. "This is an unusual problem," says Michael Fertik, CEO of ReputationDefender, which specializes in helping individuals maintain a positive Web presence. "It's devastating. This is one of the more creative and salient Google issues I've ever seen."

Fertik, who points out that he is not a supporter of the former senator, notes that more than anything, Santorum needs to act quickly. Once the campaign starts to make headlines again, an increase in search traffic will likely help maintain Savage's high spot in the rankings: "It's going to be very hard to move."

To at least make a dent, Santorum could try a concerted push to generate links to his domain on prominent sites and blogs, ginning its Google ranking; Mark Skidmore, an expert in search-engine marketing at the online strategy firm Blue State Digital, says Santorum should also consider buying paid search results for his name. He says the Obama campaign successfully used this strategy to help bury sites that claimed Obama was a Muslim or not an American citizen. But like Fertik, Skidmore thinks Santorum faces an uphill battle, in part because Savage's site has been up for so long—with more than [url="https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spreadingsantorum.com%2F&bwm=i"]13,000 inbound links[/url], compared with [url="https://siteexplorer.search.yahoo.com/search?p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.americas-foundation.org%2F&fr=sfp&bwm=i"]only 5,000[/url] for Santorum's own site, America's Foundation. "He's staring at a very big deficit," Skidmore observes.
That deficit might grow even bigger soon. "I've sort of been in denial about the fact that Rick Santorum is going to run for president," Savage says. "But now I'm going to have to sic my flying monkeys on him"—in other words, mobilize bloggers to start posting and linking to his site again.

[b]Savage has not forgiven Santorum for his seven-year-old comments: "Rick would have prevented me and my partner from being able to adopt my son," he points out. But Savage does have a deal for the politician. "If Rick Santorum wants to make a $5 million donation to [the gay marriage group] Freedom to Marry, I will take it down. Interest starts accruing now." Santorum may want to consider Savage's offer. Otherwise, he's kinda screwed.[/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Articulo viejo y sin importancia. Liberales congraciándose por ponerle el nombre de alguien que ellos detestan a las mariconerias que ellos practican.


Mima estas atras como por un an~o.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Nene el que esta atras eres tu....porque el apestoso a kulito de Santorum esta quejandose con google.....lee de vez en cuando las noticias no te quedes nada mas en tv y periodicos de la extrema derecha fanatica y enfermiza!! :moron:


[b] Rick Santorum Fights His Google Problem[/b]



[img]http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/gty_rick_santorum_jef_110510_wg.jpg[/img]



Former Senator Rick Santorum, R-Pa., delivers a speech at the National Press Club on U.S. foreign policy in this April 28, 2011 file photo. (Tom Williams/Roll Call/Getty Images)





By [url="http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=byline%3A%22Amy%20Bingham%22#0_date"]AMY BINGHAM[/url] ([url="http://twitter.com/Amy_Bingham"]@Amy_Bingham[/url])
Sept. 22, 2011

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has decided to do something about his Google problem, reportedly calling on the company to eliminate dirty search results connected to his name.

Just type his name into the search browser and you'll see why. Instead of campaign websites and Wikipedia pages, the top two results for "Santorum" link to foul, sex-related definitions of the former Pennsylvania senator's name that were circulated by gay rights activist and prankster columnist Dan Savage.
In response to comments the former Senator made in 2003 equating homosexuality with polygamy and incest, Savage launched an online competition to redefine the word "Santorum."

The winning result is not child-approved, to say the least, and Santorum, 53, is fed up with the "filth," as he calls it. The White House hopeful has reportedly called on Google to filter the unflattering search results, which have topped the list for more than six years.

"I suspect if something was up there like that about Joe Biden, they'd get rid of it," he [url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63952.html#ixzz1Ygnb6a6A"]told[/url] Politico. "If you're a responsible business, you don't let things like that happen in your business that have an impact on the country."





[b]Google's response: Don't blame the messenger, blame the webmaster.[/b]

"Google's search results are a reflection of the content and information that is available on the Web," company spokesman Gabriel Stricker said in a statement. "Users who want content removed from the Internet should contact the webmaster of the page directly.
"Once the webmaster takes the page down from the Web, it will be removed from Google's search results through our usual crawling process."
Stricker added that Google does "not remove content from our search results, except in very limited cases such as illegal content and violations of our webmaster guidelines."

While Santorum has criticized both Savage and Google multiple times for the search results, he also used the issue to raise campaign donations.
"Savage and his perverted sense of humor is the reason why my children cannot Google their father's name," Santorum wrote in a July letter to campaign supporters, [url="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59448.html"]according to[/url] Politico. "That is why I need your support today, and your contribution of $25, $50, $100 or $250 to my campaign. You can help right now by making a small or large contribution to my campaign. Don't let Dan Savage and the extreme left win."

In the 2003 [url="http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+Excerpt+from+Santorum+interview&expire=&urlID=6086103&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm&partnerID=1660"]interview[/url] with the Associated Press, Santorum said homosexual acts "undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family."

[b]"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home," Santorum said in the interview, "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. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does."[/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
No entiendo el issue. ni el peimero, ni el de google. Es que la palabre santorum tiene varios significados?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Yo no entiendo esta pendejada , la autora de este tema critica a los homofobicos pero se burla asquerozamente de los homosexuales....jajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja....esto esta kbronnnn!!!!

jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja
jajajajajajjajajjajajajajjajjajajajaj
jajajjajjaajajajajjajajajajajajajjajaj
jajajajajajjajajajjajajajjajajjajajjajajaja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='Magie' timestamp='1316708999' post='2938297']
No entiendo el issue. ni el peimero, ni el de google. Es que la palabre santorum tiene varios significados?
[/quote]


No Magie, como Rick Santorum critica a los homosexuales ellos usaron su nombre para describir una porquería innata de su cultura, y después pretenden burlarse de el porque su nombre significa eso.

Es un circulo vicioso entre ellos que solo sirve cuando no hay argumentos serios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
jajajajaja como esta el lloron en estos foros, mas tu Artaguito que te pasas trayendo temas para burlarte de Obama y los democratas y nadie te critica....pero se te revuelca la ulcera cuando yo traigo un tema......pues mira esto es noticia de hoy en todas las noticias si no te gusta, pues [b]TOO BAD!! [/b]

Magie el tipo lleva una guerra con google para que borren todo lo malo que han escrito de el.....imaginate si todos los politicos hicieran lo mismo....tanta basura que han escrito los enfermitos del Tea Party y los extremistas republicanos sobre Obama.....No Jodas.....lo que no es igual no es ventaja!!

La cantinflada y la estupidez de Chemo ni la contesto.......:dumb:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='mimapr' timestamp='1316711843' post='2938303']
jajajajaja como esta el lloron en estos foros, mas tu Artaguito que te pasas trayendo temas para burlarte de Obama y los democratas y nadie te critica....pero se te revuelca la ulcera cuando yo traigo un tema......pues mira esto es noticia de hoy en todas las noticias si no te gusta, pues [b]TOO BAD!! [/b]

Magie el tipo lleva una guerra con google para que borren todo lo malo que han escrito de el.....imaginate si todos los politicos hicieran lo mismo....tanta basura que han escrito los enfermitos del Tea Party y los extremistas republicanos sobre Obama.....No Jodas.....lo que no es igual no es ventaja!!

La cantinflada y la estupidez de Chemo ni la contesto....... :dumb:
[/quote]


Mejor no lo hagas por que vas a quedar igualito de absurdo que Nap@ en sus temas!!!....tema tras tema has criticado hasta mas no poder a los supuestos homofobicos , pero a la misma ves te burlas de las preferencias sexuales de los homosexuales.....jajajajaja....Dito y todavia se atreve a llamarme Dumb Ass!!...jajajajaja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mima ese articulo con la ilustración de Santorum en Google fue escrito hace mas de un an~o.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Yo aqui no soy el tema......si no saben leer ingles pues simplemente no opinen ........Artaguito puse el primer articulo porque tiene que ver con lo que esta pasando hoy....pero yo se que tu mentecita no te deja captar.......pobrecito!!! jajajajajajajajaja


Pero vamos a ver si son tan inteligentes y opinan sobre el tema y no sobre mi....dejen los personalismo ya.....me parece que ustedes son hombrecitos o no??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Si un 'Santorum' es la substancia homosexual esa a nombre de Rick Santorum, entonces yo le voy a poner nombre a otra substancia:


[color=#800000][b]'Barack'[/b][/color] es el nombre onomatopéyico y similar en textura y apariencia del residuo secreto que produce aquel que en competencia de gases flatulentes dice "Hay para uno mas.", pero su entusiasmo es cruelmente castigado con el inesperado deposito supersonico de material fecal en la ropa interior, o sea, un [size=5][color=#800000][i][b]Barack![/b][/i][/color].[/size]

Par de usos:
1.De ahora en adelante cuando te soples uno y te salga 'premiado', se dice: [i]"Maldita sea, me tire un [color=#800000][b]Barack[/b][/color]!"[/i]
2.Cuando tu esposa o tu mama coja el laundry y descubra una 'chilla' de goma', el insulto correcto de ella sera: [i]"Deja ya de [color=#800000][b]Barack[/b][/color] los calsoncillos, que ya estas bastante manganzon, canto e' puerco!"[/i]

:yahoo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
uyyyyyyyyyyyy como que alguien se pico por ahi..jajajajajajaja .hasta vulgar te pusistes..(republicano y teabagger al fin)..la cuestion que cuando tu buscas en google sale la definicion de Santorum.....la kk que tu escribes no sale en google.....vuelvo y repito ...no se si eres o te haces.......:moron:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='mimapr' timestamp='1316735369' post='2938332']
uyyyyyyyyyyyy como que alguien se pico por ahi..jajajajajajaja .hasta vulgar te pusistes..(republicano y teabagger al fin)..la cuestion que cuando tu buscas en google sale la definicion de Santorum.....la kk que tu escribes no sale en google.....vuelvo y repito ...no se si eres o te haces....... :moron:
[/quote]


Si lees el articulo te darás cuenta que eso de Santorum se lo inventaron para joderlo a el, y no es una palabra de verdad.

Oye y que le paso a [color=#8b4513][b]Pelosi[/b][/color]?

Así que hablar de[i] [color=#ff0000]frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex [/color][/i]es aceptable, pero de la region pubica de las mujeres no lo es?

If you can't the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Mima, gracias por la explicacion.

Al menos, ese es el apellido del politico.

Yo habia pensado que era Sanctorum, lo cual significa otra cosa: una letania, la de los santos

[size=5][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litany_of_the_Saints"][font="Calibri"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litany_of_the_Saints[/font][/url][/size]
[size=5][font="Calibri"][color="#000000"] [/color][/font][/size]
[size=5][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnyIEhpA6SE"][font="Calibri"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnyIEhpA6SE[/font][/url][/size]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Bueno, para entender el problema de Santorum (que a mi no me cae muy bien, pero eso es harina para otro costal) hay que entender la perspectiva de quienes bautizaron algo que ya tenia nombre con el apellido de el... Por lo tanto les he desenterrado este articulo tan emblematico de la actitud comemierda de los "progresivos" de hoy dia que no son mas que los socialistas de te y canape de decadas pasadas que e han hecho un "re-branding" parecido del que se hizo Barry cuando opto por hacerse llamar primero Barrack Hussein Obama y cuando ya no le convenia tanto, Barrack Obama... Esta actitud la vemos a cada rato plasmada en los abanderados del actual ocupante de la oficina ovalada aqui en el foro que dicen que aunque este equivocado [email="ell@s"]ell@s[/email] lo apoyan... Partidistas, ellos? Nooooo!!!!!


[b] [url="http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/04/19/humor-vs-contempt/"]Humor vs. Contempt: Obama and the Question of Character[/url][/b]

April 19, 2010 - 10:32 am - by [url="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/rogerkimball/"]Roger Kimball[/url]




[u]Much has been made of Barack Obama’s claim to have been [url=""]“amused”[/url] by the nationwide tea party demonstrations on Tax Day last week. Really, he told acolytes at a Democratic fundraiser (expected haul: $2.5 million), “[url="http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/04/15/obama-on-tea-partiers-they-should-say-thank-you/"]they should be saying thank you[/url].”[/u]
[u]Applause. Cries of “Thank you.” Laugh track?[/u]
[u]I believe that the editorialist for [i]Investor’s Business Daily [/i]got it exactly right about the second part of Obama’s response to the rallies: “[url="http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=530619"]Thanks for What?[/url]” he asked.[/u][indent]
Why should they [the tea partiers] be thankful? As the president himself said on his weekly radio address a week ago, “one thing we have not done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000; that’s another promise we kept.”
In fact, that wasn’t his promise at all.
Here’s what candidate Obama really said in September of 2008: [b]“Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”[/b]
Got that? “Not any of your taxes[u].” The claim of no tax hikes on those below $250,000 as a result of the current administration’s policies is completely and utterly false.[/u]
A report from the House Ways & Means Committee’s GOP members notes that,[u] since January 2009, Congress and the president have enacted $670 billion in tax increases. That’s $2,100 for each person in America. At least 14 of those tax hikes, the report says, break Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. Roughly $316 billion of the tax hikes — 14 increases in all — hit middle-class families, the report says.[/u]
This comes in addition to recent data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showing U.S. spending and indebtedness growing at an alarming rate. Government spending now totals 25% of GDP, a quarter above its long-term average. By 2035, it will hit 34% of GDP at current trends — a 70% increase in the real size of government in just 25 years.[/indent]
Ha, ha, ha. Very amusing, what?
What should we make of Obama’s merriment? What does it tell us about his sense of humor? What does it tell us about what an earlier age would have called his “humor,” his character?
The first thing to notice about this moment of hilarity is how consonant it is with other Obama rhetorical eructations. For example, how similar in spirit it is to his challenge to Republicans after Nancy Pelosi managed to ram the presidential health care legislation through Congress. Instantly, there were calls to repeal the law. “My attitude is,” [url="http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/obama-to-gop-you-want-repeal-bring-it-on/"]Obama told a crowd in Iowa[/url], “go for it” — as if it would get them anywhere!
Obama’s amusement at the spectacle of dissent was also consonant with the remarks of candidate Obama disparaging all those “bitter” folks who “[url="http://inkslwc.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/barack-obama-bitter-pennsylvanians-cling-to-guns-or-religion/"]cling to guns or religion[/url]” instead of getting with the big government, progressive leftism espoused by Barack Obama.
[b]Indeed, in one sense Obama’s comments are simply natural coefficients of a basic presumption of that progressive attitude, namely, [color=#ff0000]the conviction that the left-liberal view of reality is not a [i]political[/i] view but merely the view that any enlightened, reasonable person would have. It is only dissent from that view that is [i]political[/i], warped by self-interest, etc.[/color] If only everyone were sufficiently enlightened, everyone would (so this fairytale goes) have essentially the same ideas about all contentious issues.[/b] Which is to say, there would in the end be no contentious issues, for [u]to dissent from the progressive narrative would be evidence of (depending on the nature of the regime) heresy, treason, or stupidity.[/u] Ultimately, contention would not only be stigmatized as counterproductive, it would be proscribed as criminal or insane.
[b]The popularity of this view, as I’ve [url="http://www.amazon.com/Experiments-Against-Reality-Culture-Postmodern/dp/156663430X"]noted elsewhere[/url], owes a great deal to John Stuart Mill. It was Mill who assembled the seductive arguments and inveigling rhetoric that convinced susceptible souls to look forward to a future in which, for the first time, “general unanimity of sentiment,” “firmly grounded in reason and in the true exigencies of life,” would make dispute about any important matter otiose. What if you dispute Mill’s notion of what counts as rational? What if you think he erred in defining “the true exigencies of life”? What if you think the whole utilitarian calculus is deeply flawed and in fact elides essential dimensions of human endeavor? Then you are a candidate for re-education, restraint, or ostracization.[/b]
If you care to test the traction of this dimension of the left-liberal consensus, you need only contemplate the way in which its spokesmen in the media and political establishment treat the tea party demonstrations. [u]It wasn’t so long ago that Robert Gibbs, the president’s press secretary, dismissed the tea partiers as members of “the Brooks Brothers’ Brigade,” i.e., mostly middle class folks who, alarmed at the statist initiatives undertaken by the Obama administration, organized to proffer a competing point of view but who did so peaceably and with respect for the rule of law.[/u]
[u]That was back when Obama, Gibbs, et al. could regard the tea parties as an impotent nuisance. In recent months, it is clear that the tea party has become a nuisance that, far from being impotent, might well be an electoral game-changer. Hence the establishment’s rhetoric has shifted drastically. You no longer find Barbara Boxer sneering about tea partiers being “well dressed.” Nowadays you find tea partiers accused of racism, violence, and disloyalty, never mind that the left-liberal establishment can point to no examples of these torts.[/u] The thing to grasp is that [b]those making the accusations do not feel called upon to offer examples[/b]. [u]The guilt of the tea-partiers transcends anything so pedestrian as actual behavior. Tea partiers are like “class enemies” under Stalin: guilty by definition.[/u]
Which brings me back to Obama’s merriment. Why did he find it “amusing” to contemplate the anti-tax rallies undertaken by (let us remember) the people he serves? Where was the humor? Let me add that I like a leader with a sense of humor. It was something that Winston Churchill, for example, possessed in spades. Clement Attlee, he said, was a modest man who had much to be modest about. Ronald Reagan had the same gift. Having been shot by John Hinckley, he said to the doctor: “I hope you are a Republican.”
But [b]it’s one thing to have a sense of humor. It’s quite another to regard one’s opponents with amused disdain. One key difference is the presence of contempt[/b]. Obama’s modus operandi excels in the deployment of contempt. Is it part of his instinctive embrace of Saul Alinsky’s “[url="http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134/"]rules for radicals[/url]“? I do not know. But in some ways Obama’s habitual expression of contempt is the most alarming component of his style of governing. Together with his evident self-infatuation and notorious sensitivity to criticism, it bespeaks a character that is volatile, heedless, and disengaged from the palpable realities faced by the people he represents. Hence his suggestion — meant, I feel sure, in all earnestness — that the people who rallied against bigger government and higher taxes should thank him for . . . for what? For not taxing them into penury?
Obama doesn’t see this, of course. He really cannot twig why everyone is not lining up to thank him for being their leader. Such imperviousness is worrisome, for it betokens a disconnection from reality. But it looks now as if the dissatisfaction represented by the tea partiers is growing by leaps and bounds. It is not dissipating, as many predicted; it is gaining definition and ever-more broad-based support. There will come a time when Obama will find it impossible to avoid acknowledging this. That is the moment when we really have to fear the reaction of this supremely disengaged connoisseur of contempt.

Eso ya lo hemos visto en el microcosmo que es este foro...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Charlie, cada cual tiene su forma de ver las cosas.

La politica tambien es un arte. Obama sigue siendo un artista en esa materia.

De los candidatos republicanos. veremos a ver quien es el que trriunfa en ese arte.

Tal vez a Santorum le convendria mejor rezar una letania que utilizar un unguento. Google no le va a resolver el problema. Por el momento, no esta demostrando dominar el arte de hacer politica.

Y en los foros, tampoco hay muchos. Ja, ja!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Si Obama fuese blanco completo y no a medias, crees que no habrian candidatos a primarias? Es in bs-artist.

IMPO, Santorum se rebel retirar de la primaria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Claro que los fanaticos republicanos se comportan como salvajes en los debates pero al menos este contesto algo razonable...



[b][size=6]Santorum: 'I Condemn' Boos of Gay Soldier[/size][/b]

(Newser) –[b] Rick Santorum looked to bring boo-gate to a halt on Fox News yesterday: "I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier," he said, referring to the handful of [url="http://www.newser.com/story/129298/debate-audience-boos-gay-iraq-vet.html?utm_medium=goognews&utm_campaign=chan3_feed"]jeers during a question[/url] at the GOP debate about Don't Ask, Don't Tell.[/b]

The candidate says he didn't speak up at the time because he couldn't hear the boos on stage, reports [url="http://www.newser.com/story/129298/debate-audience-boos-gay-iraq-vet.html?utm_medium=goognews&utm_campaign=chan3_feed"]CNN[/url]. "Certainly had I heard them, I would have said, 'Don't do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.' "

Weird acoustics, apparently. Gary Johnson said he did hear the boos from stage and thought the other candidates could as well, notes [url="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/arigop-candidates-react-to-booed-gay-soldier/"]ABC News[/url]. "I am representing the Republican Party that is tolerant," he said. "And to me that shows an intolerance that I’m not a part of in any way whatsoever."

[b]Will Santorum's condemnation be enough to keep Dan Savage from [url="http://www.newser.com/story/129092/rick-santorum-complains-to-google-about-google-results-for-santorum.html"]redefining "Rick"[/url] on Google? Only time will tell.[/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Decidete. Lo aplaudes o lo condenas? La verdad de que Gary Johnson esta en el mismo bote que Santorum... Uno que no vs a llegar a candidatura.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name='mimapr' timestamp='1316868452' post='2938409']
Claro que los fanaticos republicanos se comportan como salvajes en los debates pero al menos este contesto algo razonable...



[b][size=6]Santorum: 'I Condemn' Boos of Gay Soldier[/size][/b]

(Newser) –[b] Rick Santorum looked to bring boo-gate to a halt on Fox News yesterday: "I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier," he said, referring to the handful of [url="http://www.newser.com/story/129298/debate-audience-boos-gay-iraq-vet.html?utm_medium=goognews&utm_campaign=chan3_feed"]jeers during a question[/url] at the GOP debate about Don't Ask, Don't Tell.[/b]

The candidate says he didn't speak up at the time because he couldn't hear the boos on stage, reports [url="http://www.newser.com/story/129298/debate-audience-boos-gay-iraq-vet.html?utm_medium=goognews&utm_campaign=chan3_feed"]CNN[/url]. "Certainly had I heard them, I would have said, 'Don't do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.' "

Weird acoustics, apparently. Gary Johnson said he did hear the boos from stage and thought the other candidates could as well, notes [url="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/arigop-candidates-react-to-booed-gay-soldier/"]ABC News[/url]. "I am representing the Republican Party that is tolerant," he said. "And to me that shows an intolerance that I’m not a part of in any way whatsoever."

[b]Will Santorum's condemnation be enough to keep Dan Savage from [url="http://www.newser.com/story/129092/rick-santorum-complains-to-google-about-google-results-for-santorum.html"]redefining "Rick"[/url] on Google? Only time will tell.[/b]
[/quote]



Los abucheos fueron cuando el soldado hizo la pregunta, así que esos 5-10 (de 6000 personas en la audiencia) que abuchearon por el hacer esa pregunta y no necesariamente por el ser soldado ser gay.


Santorum: [color=#ff0000][i]"Certainly had I heard them, I would have said, 'Don't do that. This man is serving our country and we are to thank him for his service.' "[/i][/color]

Que el soldado este sirviendo a su país en Iraq (a lo que los liberales llaman "Baby killing"), no lo hace inmune de las opiniones de otros ciudadanos, aunque estas vengan desagradablemente en forma de abucheos. Los liberales saben muy bien eso y ejercieron su libertad de expresión durante el Surge con este anuncio:

[img]http://luckybogey.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/general_betray_us.gif[/img]


[b]Lo que no acepto es que liberales vengan ahora falsamente indignados y sacudiendo las manitas cuando le han estado escupiendo la cara (literalmente y simbólicamente) a nuestros militares por los ultimos 40 an~os.[/b]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Similar Content

    • mimapr
      Birth Control As Election Issue? Why?
      By mimapr
      No se porque los republicanos conservadores se preocupan tanto por los anticonceptivos y no se preocupan por tantos curas pedofilos que abusan de los nenes.....eso esta permitido en la biblia? Estos idiotas ya cansan!! Yo le propongo a estos republicanos idiotas que para que las mujeres no se embarazen que los hombres desde jovencitos les hagan una vasectomia sino que se lo corten....asi no se tienen que preocupar tanto por los asuntos de las mujeres....


      [b] Birth control as election issue? Why?[/b]

      [b] By Ann Gerhart, Updated: Monday, February 20, 7:48 PM[/b]

      Who says you can’t turn the clock back?

      [b]Decades ago, near the end of the Age of Aquarius, a Republican congressman from Texas argued passionately that the federal government should pay for birth control for poor women.[/b]

      “We need to take sensationalism out of this topic so that it can no longer be used by militants who have no real knowledge of the voluntary nature of the program but, rather, are using it as a political stepping stone,” [b]said George H.W. Bush[/b]. “If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter.”

      Title X, the law he sponsored that still funds family planning for the poor, passed the House by a vote of 298 to 32. It passed the Senate unanimously. [b]A Republican president, Richard Nixon, enthusiastically signed it.[/b]

      That was 1970.

      This is now: The issue of birth control has suddenly become an obsession of the 2012 presidential campaign. To many observers, it seems that the clock has indeed been turned back.

      Using birth control to have sex without making a baby has been settled social behavior, not a taboo but an ordinary prescription that [url="""]virtually all[/url] American women present at the drugstore counter at some point in their lives. For many, it seems the common-sense way to avoid the prospect of abortion, which has been the really divisive issue of sexual politics.

      Now gender warfare is erupting anew, at least in the spheres where political agitation thrives.

      “Now you have a group of inflamed, enraged and constantly provoked women,” says Clare Coleman, who heads the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

      Or, as Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, said incredulously on Saturday during a rally in Austin:

      “Somehow in this country, in 2012, this election might turn on whether women should have access to birth control.”
      This might seem a bewildering turn of events, particularly when polls consistently show that (a) voters place jobs and the economy atop the list of their concerns and (b) large majorities of Americans of all faiths support the use of birth control, the most commonly prescribed drug for women between 18 and 44, and have done so for years.

      But elections have a way of becoming national conversations — often unwieldy ones.

      [b]On the surface, this battle seems to have been joined by liberals and conservatives over President Obama’s insistence that all employers, including religious institutions, who provide health insurance include birth control at no cost.[/b]

      This expansion of reproductive rights has thrilled liberals and dismayed conservatives, who see it as a violation of the separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution.

      Catholic [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/birth-control-compromise-still-presents-grave-moral-concerns-to-catholic-church/2012/02/16/gIQAwpTtHR_story.html"]bishops have been most opposed[/url] to the policy directive, because doctrine holds that any birth control except natural family planning is a sin against God. And the bishops have gained allies among those eager to overturn the entire health-care act. Repealing Obamacare, as Republicans call it, is a central pledge of all the men who want to be the Republican presidential nominee.

      Layer on the public proclamations of one of those candidates, former senator Rick Santorum (Pa.), who has pulled ahead of the presumptive front-runner, Mitt Romney, in several national polls. He says that states should be free to [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/rick-santorums-very-catholic-birth-control-beliefs/2012/02/16/gIQALczyHR_blog.html"]ban birth control[/url], that [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/rick-santorum-prenatal-testing-encourages-abortions/2012/02/19/gIQAvmZeNR_blog.html"]prenatal testing leads to abortion[/url] and that as president he would warn the nation about “the dangers of contraception.”

      And the nostalgia of one his wealthiest backers for the days of abstinence when “gals” used to put Bayer aspirin “between their knees.” And the spectacle of House Republicans inviting an[b] [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/birth-control-hearing-on-capitol-hill-had-all-male-panel-of-witnesses/2012/02/16/gIQA6BM5HR_blog.html"][color=#ff0000]all-male panel[/color][/url][/b] to testify about the issue, which caused two congresswomen to stomp out of the chamber.

      All of it made Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) “feel like I woke up this morning on the set of ‘Mad Men,’ ” as she put it in a fundraising letter Friday, “and the Republicans have set their time machine for the 1950s.”

      As is often the case in these matters, a variety of seemingly disparate issues get all tangled up — the Commerce Clause and Catholic doctrine, religious freedom and the right to privacy, feminism and liberty and conscience — at a time of economic uncertainty and vast demographic and societal transition.

      Two states move to [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/same-sex-marriage-bill-passes-maryland-house-of-delegates/2012/02/17/gIQARk7XKR_story.html"]legalize gay marriage[/url] on two consecutive days; the Maryland governor [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/omalley-unveils-agenda-including-same-sex-marriage-bill/2012/01/23/gIQAV8gMMQ_story.html"]pledges to sign[/url] the law, and his counterpart in New Jersey [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/apnewsbreak-gay-marriage-bill-delivered-to-nj-governor-who-has-vowed-to-veto-it/2012/02/17/gIQApnPrJR_story.html"]vetoes[/url] it. The Pew Research Center reports that [url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/intermarriage-rates-soar-as-stereotypes-fall/2012/02/15/gIQAvyByGR_story.html"]interracial marriage[/url] is at a new high, and America learns of a new threshold crossed: [url="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occur-outside-marriage.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=jason%20deparle&st=cse"]More children are born[/url] to single women under 30 than to married ones.

      These streams of social change from different sources tumble into one another and form a whirlpool that roils an already unsettled electorate.

      Listen to Dianne Schram, who expresses a deeper sense of unease in a letter that appeared Saturday in the Detroit Free Press:

      [b]“It is a sad day in America when you have to compromise your religious rights. This disagreement has nothing to do with birth control, sterilization or abortion; it is the right given to us in the First Amendment, separation of church and state.[/b]
      [b]“Our freedoms of choice are slowly disappearing. The government is telling us what light bulbs to use, what kind of cars to drive, what to eat and what kind of health care is required.”[/b]

      The long-settled right to contraception takes its place alongside all kinds of cultural struggles underway in America, over immigration, gay rights, lifestyle, government power and income inequality, at a time when people feel threatened and wary of giving away what they have.

      Any one of those can erupt and spread in fast frenzy, amplified through the bullhorn of social media.

      This latest argument sets “a claim of a certain good that should be provided” — free preventative care to all women — “versus a claim of freedom of association” — workers accept jobs with religious institutions knowing their beliefs might conflict with their own — says Patrick Deneen, a political science professor at Georgetown University and one of more than 100 scholars who signed [url="http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Garvey-Glendon-George-Snead-Levin-stmt-Feb-11-2012.pdf"]an open letter[/url] that argues the administration’s “conscience” accommodation on the issue is unacceptable.

      “This is a long-standing set of debates that go way back in American history implicating all kinds of issues — federalism, whether states should have certain kinds of organizations,” Deneen says. “It’s a very old issue that is popping up in an election year in surprising ways.”

      Here’s another way to frame it, says Coleman, a Catholic with a long career in protecting and providing reproductive health care to the poor.

      The church’s argument that providing birth control violates its conscience inevitably comes into conflict with the rights of its nonbeliever employees to have the same access to free birth control that others do. There are real-world concerns, too. Some say that if you want birth control, don’t work for a Catholic organization. Others say that an orderly or cafeteria worker in a large Catholic hospital might not have other job options or the money to buy her own birth control, which can cost up to $600 a year. Those who favor the new ruling add that these religious institutions also are receiving federal funds.

      “That is the age-old question of where does your freedom end and where does your neighbor’s begin,” Coleman says, “and that is the core idea of America, and we are going to keep battling it out.”

      The unresolved search for a “truly conservative Republican nominee and the backlash against Obama” has forged an election-year unity among Catholic bishops and religious evangelicals on an issue about which they usually disagree, says D.G. Hart, author of “[url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080286628X?ie=UTF8&tag=washingtonpost-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=080286628X"]From Billy Graham to Sarah Palin: Evangelicals and the Betrayal of American Conservatism[/url].”

      He says that the chief reason birth control has emerged as a prominent issue is because the religious freedom argument can be a fresh line of attack against Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment, which is being challenged in the courts.

      “The way the American democratic system works is very peculiar,” says Hart, who teaches history at Hillsdale College in Michigan.

      “But I don’t know that this [election cycle] is any worse than any other period when religious and racial preferences were expressed as cultural preference,” when a presidential election becomes an even more pointed referendum on what kind of society we want to construct.

      He notes a disconnect among Republican voters between what the law currently requires and permits and “what people think Obama is requiring, and their perceptions go a long way to motivating them. You might think we would be better, and it is surprising that these cultural matters keep coming up this way. But that is where we are, and perhaps that is where we always will be. It is the only national election we have.”
    • mimapr
      Evangelical Leaders Back Santorum
      By mimapr
      [size=6][b] Evangelical leaders back Santorum[/b][/size]





      [img]http://snsimages.tribune.com/media/photo/2012-01/67377587.jpg[/img]
      Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum attends a campaign event at Tommy's Country Ham House in Greenville (ERIC THAYER, REUTERS / January 14, 2012)
      Deborah Charles Reuters
      5:39 p.m. CST, January 14, 2012

      COLUMBIA, South Carolina (Reuters) - [b]Influential evangelical Christian leaders endorsed Rick Santorum on Saturday for the Republican presidential nomination, in an attempt to strengthen him as the more conservative alternative to front-runner Mitt Romney.[/b]

      At a weekend meeting at a ranch outside Houston, the group of 150 conservatives who had joined forces agreed on the third ballot to support the former Pennsylvania senator. Former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich came in second.

      They had not been expected to reach agreement on one candidate since evangelical support has been splintered among Santorum, Gingrich and Texas Governor Rick Perry.

      "There is clearly a united group here that is committed to see ... a true conservative elected to the White House," said Tony Perkins, leader of the Family Research Council and spokesman for the group.

      The endorsement came one week before South Carolina votes on January 21 in the Republican presidential primary. The Republicans are selecting a candidate to challenge President Barack Obama in the November election.

      "It will have an impact in South Carolina and in shifting support to the consensus candidate which is Rick Santorum," Perkins said.

      Santorum may need the help. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Saturday showed Romney with a huge lead in the state, with 37 percent of the vote. Santorum and libertarian Ron Paul were tied for second at 16 percent.

      Santorum will be looking to follow up with the religious groups to give him a push in the last week of campaigning in the state and into the next primary vote in Florida.