I'm sure there are a butt-load (pun intended) of closeted republican males looking for a sham marriage along the lines of Santorum's.

You just can't make up this kind of stoooopid. Ole Frothy is the true poster child of the New GO(t)P.

Santorum is an outstanding representative of the conservative Republican point of view.

Santorum is an outstanding representative of the conservative Republican point of view.#3 | Posted by nullifidian

I'm in complete agreement with that and he would make a fine president.

Santorum is an outstanding representative of the conservative Republican point of view.#3 | Posted by nullifidian

I'm in complete agreement with that and he would make a fine president.

#5 | Posted by paneocon

Excellent. Any more conservatives want to agree with Santorum that women should stick to being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen?

Any more conservatives want to agree with Santorum that women should stick to being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen?

did he say that? I didn't see any of those words.

take another hit, nulli. your hysteria is starting to spill over

Being barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen has always been the Democratic way of keeping their voters on the entitlement Mary Go Round.

"did he say that? I didn't see any of those words. "

That's true, Eberly. He never said those exact words. Duh.

He never said those exact words

he didn't say anything like it either. He was referring to a voting demographic of single mothers and if they got married and off assistance, they wouldn't be a dem voter anymore.

"he didn't say anything like it either."

It's a fair summation of his views. In the last debate he blamed women for income inequality. A true neanderfuck who hates women, wants to control their bodies, blame them for social problems, etc. In other words, a typical social conservative.

As detestable as Rick Santorum is, I never thoight I'd see the day when he'd make Michele Bachmann look reasonable.

In the last debate he blamed women for income inequality #11 | Posted by nullifidian

Prove it.

You may not like the message but the facts are there. You can't handle the truth?

#4 | Posted by paneocon at 2011-10-20 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

The facts that you posted are not in question. It's inSANEtorums proposed solution that is being criticized.

did he say that? I didn't see any of those words.

take another hit, nulli. your hysteria is starting to spill over

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2011-10-20 05:47 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

No, he didn't say that, but he did say that they should be 'married off'.

The same man who is so against two people of the same sex getting married now admits he wants single women to be forced to marry someone so that the GOP can win more elections.

I bet when Rick Santorum was a little boy he liked to draw pictures of vagina dentata.

As usual, facts and exact quotes mean nothing to the DR left.

As usual, facts and exact quotes mean nothing to the DR left.

#17 | Posted by paneocon at 2011-10-20 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well then, enlighten us all with your wisdom. I already stated my opinion of the facts you posted regarding single mothers. I said that the facts aren't in dispute. It's your false-prophet Santorum's proposed solution to dealing with his parties polling numbers.

p.s. eat shit.

PaniClown is to busy burning crosses on lawns to look up facts.

Yes, I think we should get those single moms married off to some of the available "gentlemen" here on the DR. It might help to civilize a few of them. Good luck, girls. LOL

Yes, I think we should get those single moms married off to some of the available "gentlemen" here on the DR. It might help to civilize a few of them. Good luck, girls. LOL

#20 | Posted by califchris at 2011-10-20 06:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gentlemen?

I've worked very hard to scrub that label from myself and I don't need you throwing it around in here, missy!

I've got a rep to protect!

I'm beginning to think Rick Santorum would be happiest in prison, where a boyfriend would be supplied to him without his actually having to take responsibility for it.

Weather or not he actually said it, it is true.

Un(never)employed never wed mothers, the backbone of society.

Weather or not he actually said it, it is true.

Un(never)employed never wed mothers, the backbone of society.

#23 | Posted by glasshouse at 2011-10-20 08:18 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

"Weather (sic) or not he actually said it...."

Are you doubting the validity of Santorum's voice on the audio clip in the story?

America's Ever Expanding Welfare Empire

The best estimate of the cost of the 185 federal means tested welfare programs for 2010 for the federal government alone is nearly $700 billion, up a third since 2008, according to the Heritage Foundation. Counting state spending, total welfare spending for 2010 reached nearly $900 billion, up nearly one-fourth since 2008 (24.3%).

Yet, by 2008, Robert Rector of Heritage reports that total welfare spending already amounted to $16,800 per person in poverty, 4 times as much as the Census Bureau estimated was necessary to bring all of the poor up to the poverty level, eliminating all poverty in America. That would be $50,400 per poor family of three. Indeed, Charles Murray wrote a whole book, In Our Hands, A Plan to Replace America’s Welfare State explaining that we already spend far more than enough to completely eliminate all poverty in America.

"America's Ever Expanding Welfare Empire"

Since when is violating someone's civil rights a viable solution to the problem of unwed mothers? Might as well put them in a labor camp and short rations. That will reduce their numbers.

Since when is violating someone's civil rights a viable solution to the problem of unwed mothers? #26 | Posted by RandyRingen

where did you get that?

Santorum wants to marry people off. How is he going to do it? Mandatory marriage if you want benefits? That's what it sounds like. Or is he going to turn the government into Match.gov. It though repubs wanted to stay out of people's lives. That's been his consistent position all along. Read the article.

Arranged marriages by the government? Boy you republicans sure are fucking stupid. How is it you guys claim to be for a smaller government and yet insist on monitoring (controlling) what everyone does at all times?

Oh, that's right, you only want smaller government when a democrat is in power. I never heard any of this shit when Bush Jr was wiping his ass with our economy.

"thought" I mean. Anyway, what business is it of the government if or when I choose to marry?

#28 | Posted by RandyRingen
#29 | Posted by ClownShack

That is nowhere near what Santurium says in the video. Nice try. Is a requirement for being a good Democrat that you never check out anything out for yourself? When I was a young lib in the 60's we never trusted anyone but you bozos trust anything that is associated with Democrats and liberal causes. I promise some day that will not work out well for you.

So tell me, what is his solution? Match.gov or forced marriages? You're avoiding the topic. But I'm sure that works very well for you.

I understand you're learning impaired, but LISTEN TO THE TAPE.

I did; here is the transcript, which is in the article:

"Look at the political base of the Democratic Party: It is single mothers who run a household," he told Tony Perkins, president of the Christian conservative think tank Family Research Council. "Why? Because it’s so tough economically that they look to the government for help and therefore they’re going to vote. So if you want to reduce the Democratic advantage, what you want to do is build two parent families, you eliminate that desire for government."

So, which is it? You're still ducking the question. Forced marriages or Match.gov? Because you repubs certainly aren't going to give money to people to get married.

He is not talking about forced marriage and you know it. Democrats have changed the tax code to remove the reward for marriage over the years. There are many ways government can promote marriage or de incentivize marriage. Dems have been de incentivizing marriage for years.

I don't know it all, PA. Santorum is exactly the guy I would believe would implement forced marriages; or deny aid to those who are unmarried, which is more likely. Anyway, you still haven't told me what Santorum meant, so you don't know, either, or you are still ducking the question. I know Santorum certainly didn't mention anything about the tax code--I can't imagine him giving tax breaks to the poor. Maybe Santorum didn't mean anything--just another empty statement that sounds good. And speaking as a single person, I wonder why should government be in the business of rewarding marriage? Am I less of a person because I'm not married? Keep government out of marriage. A person should marry because he or she wants to, not because of a tax breaks. Marrieds get breaks for rug rats; that's enough.

Randy is kicking your ass all over the place Panche.

Why won't you answer the simple question? What's the solution? Arranged marriage or match.gov (tm RandyRingen)

Santorum should be talking about forced sterlization when it comes to you two trolls.

Well, with that remark, I see it's time to leave. Which is a shame, too, since I think that the problem of unwed mothers is a very serious one. However, I do wonder why Republicans call Democrat efforts to change society "social engineering" when they themselves are willing to manipulate the tax code to achieve their own social ends. Anyway, I actually think Santorum was just blathering on without thinking, making vague, feel-good statements in an attempt to appeal to his audience without even thinking of the consequences of his proposals. Or if he did know what he was saying--say tax cuts to induce poor people to marry--he certainly wasn't going to go into detail, because I think his audience would be much more comfortable with forced marriages as a solution. Peace to you all, I ask forgiveness for any bitterness, and have a good night.

Santorum should be talking about forced sterlization when it comes to you two trolls.

#38 | POSTED BY PANEOCON

So you are a fan of big government! Thanks for answering the question.

Also, the only incentive for marriage (Hetero or Homo) should be the fact you love the person you are with. Not the hope to gain money from the government.

So far you are for big government and some kind of marriage welfare.

My god I cant believe im going to say this but...Paneocon is right.

Clownshack and randyringer are so off target here its a little disturbing.

Santorum, who is speaking to a Christian think tank says and im para-phrasing here. "Single moms/parents currently are entitled to government assistance of one form or another. They (single parents) vote for whatever party that will make sure those checks will keep coming. If this demographic happened to be married it would be a non-issue for republicans. How can you effect change with this demographic? Stop giving incentives to single parents. Make it worth their while to have a family unit which can raise and feed the childrent on its own without government assistance" Perhaps then you wont see so many trailer parks with 15 kids and one mom per trailer. You dont have to agree with this idea. He never said "im all about writing policy that forces single parents to marry, shot gun wedding style.

I think Clownshack and Randyringer, on this topic have contributed to immature dialog when someone is trying to discuss a fairly interesting issue for debate. Imho.

Perhaps then you wont see so many trailer parks with 15 kids and one mom per trailer.

#41 | POSTED BY ALASKAN_GUY

Maybe just teach some sex ed and make condoms available.

Or we can play welfare games, taking away from single parents that could actually use the help and giving it to married couples.

Your babble is short sighted.

By the way, your opinion isn't humble for shit. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. You are in favor of opening the door for more government interference in our lives and more government control of marriage.

Oh, and the whole premise is pure partisan bullshit. I'm sure all those stupid single parents would be voting republican, if only they were to be married.

No, Santorum is a loser that's looking for any excuse to distract from the fact that he's frothy anal lube.

The Child Abuse Crisis: The Disintegration of Marriage, Family, and the American Community

The growing empirical evidence on child abuse1 reveals new, alarming, and distinct patterns of familial relationships that contribute greatly to this tragedy. The studies show that, along with a continual rise in the incidence of child abuse in the United States, there has been an increase in the number of children born out of wedlock and abandoned by their fathers, as well as an increase in the number of children affected by divorce. Now, in addition to poverty and community environment, the rising incidence of child abuse in the United States can be linked to one more factor: whether an abused child's parents are married.

Since I know the Heritage Hate is coming here is the link for you libs.

this discussed on the Morning Joe today

1 in 4 American children raised by a single parent

One in four children in the United States is being raised by a single parent â€" a percentage that is higher than other developed countries, and expected to rise, according to a report released Wednesday.

Of the 27 industrialized countries studied by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the U.S. had 25.8 percent of children being raised by a single parent, compared with an average of 14.9 percent across the other countries.

Children at higher risk in nontraditional homes

Social changes needed
The previous version of the study, released in 1996, concluded that children of single parents had a 77 percent greater risk of being harmed by physical abuse than children living with both parents. The new version will delve deeper into specifics of family structure and cohabitation, according to project director Andrea Sedlak.

Long term, many child-welfare advocates say social changes are needed, so day-care options improve and young men in poor communities have job prospects that make marriage seem more feasible.

"These boyfriends increasingly have been raised without fathers and been abused themselves,: said Patrick Fagan, a family-policy specialist with the conservative Family Research Council.

43--Maybe, maybe not. But you're shifting away from your point. And I gotta say, in every single abuse case I know of personally, the parents were married. Anecdotal, but just a way of saying you need to be careful. I think you were, but irresponsible use of statistics might let someone conclude that abuse happens only or mostly in single-parent households. I don't buy it.

And btw, why is Santorum essentially saying, "We'll have more voters if we take away entitlements" any better than the accusation that Dems are essentially saying (internally anyway), "We'll have more voters if we give more entitlements"? Both are saying "Hey, let's manipulate voters!" That ain't public service; that's abuse. And both are fuckers if they play that game.

All that said, the impact of welfare in our society is a serious issue. Santorum is actually demeaning its importance with this sort of rhetoric. Some of you are doing the same. It is simply not as easy as, "If we take it away, the problem will go away." Nor is it as easy as, "Let's keep doing it." And linking welfare to marriage is some fucked-up shit. Linking it to responsibility is another story.

Santorum is a douche bag and has no chance of becoming pres. Seriously... this guy thinks it's still 1951... please stfu and go back to watching The Dick van Dyke show on TV Land.

"a family-policy specialist with the conservative Family Research Council."

Um... If I quoted a liberal, PA, what would you immediately be tempted to do? And note, all your previous links are from the Heritage Foundation. I'm not saying that makes them wrong, but perhaps if you want a serious argument, you should work not to give your opponents ammunition to shoot you down. : )

#48 | Posted by pragmatist

See I don't have that problem, a source is a source if it's back up by a reasonable non-partisan study. If there is any place that this partisan crap should be left at the door it is in the care of our children. they didn't create but problems we have now. I know I don't have to tell you that you live it ever day.

46 | Posted by pragmatist

Your lib flag is flying. Here is the source doc.

Children's Exposure to Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey

49. Yes, I do.

Thanks for the direct link. I stand by my admonition about statistics.

Love the post with the 4 Heritage links.

You may not like the messenger

We love the Heritage Foundation since it came out in favor of socialized medicine. and Bush did a bang up (some pun intended) job in deceasing this, judging by your stats there.

IF and that's a big if, social conservatives were serious about saving the pre-borns, every woman in the cause of child bearing age would volunteer to host a snowflake baby every year or two. Every other couple would adopt a child, regardless of race.

But actually doing something is probably way too interruptive of their tennis lessons and anti-obama hate meetings, so they let the poor little babies die.

After my divorce years ago I dated a number of women who were single moms - each and every one laid me on the first date. I like single moms :)

You may not like the messenger or the message but the statics show that two parent households are the safest way to bring up children.

#43 | Posted by paneocon

Well, gosh golly gee...common sense will tell you that two parents which includes a couple of dads or a couple of moms can raise a child easier and safer than a single stressed out parent can.

Also...in case you are not aware...the sky is blue.

54--I hope you used protection. : )

Following Santorum's reasoning leads straight to polygamy.

More 'small government' republicans trying to use the govt to make you marry for benefits.

Santorum should be talking about forced sterlization when it comes to you two trolls.

#38 | Posted by paneocon at 2011-10-20 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

More of that 'less intrusive govt' you like to pretend you want?

#58
#59

Your dumb... Dumb with talking points makes you especially dumb, party line and partisan dumb. Try thinking on your own. I know group think is easier but just try having your own thoughts and see how it fits... Never mind.

"By the way, your opinion isn't humble for shit. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. You are in favor of opening the door for more government interference in our lives and more government control of marriage."

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2011-10-21 05:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Frothing at the mouth while telling me what I think and letting us all know what Santorum REALLY meant. My god I wander what your home life is like. I am happy you are posting your crazy on the internet instead of participating in the real word with it.

"Santorum is a loser"

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2011-10-21 05:52 AM | Reply | Flag

I do agree with that remark however.

Pan-lets talk facts. You never proved your numbers on the cleveland ows thread.

Here is a question-who made it so a father could not be in the home of a family receiving public assistance?

Your dumb... Dumb with talking points makes you especially dumb, party line and partisan dumb. Try thinking on your own. I know group think is easier but just try having your own thoughts and see how it fits... Never mind.

#60 | Posted by Alaskan_Guy at 2011-10-21 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

OK....but only because you asked nicely. LOL.

Everybody knows that having Barack Hussein Obama in the White House is preferable to having a real wage-earning man in the living room. Who need men, when you've got Democrats who are paying you to stay pregnant, dumb, and unemployed?

What we really need are more people like NulliAxeForthUnity, willing to have their taxes go up from zero to a few thousand dollars a year. That way, these poor single moms can take a little vacation or two every now and then.

Jawboning men is not likely to promote a rush for them to get married. Government policies have made getting married a disadvantage for single mothers.

Santorum's views on women's rights. If you still think this man is worthy of being our next President, read the following links.

"He is against women's rights, women's health and against women in the work place. He ought to just come right out and say that a woman's place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. "

Like most social conservatives, Santorum is a misogynist.