Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27
  1. #11  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    Anything "funny" to a DUer has something to do with perverse sex or potty humor. It gives them enough diversion to allow them to switch the finger in their nostrils.

    It appears we are gaining some traction in DUmmieland:

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002139093

    xchrom

    “Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common.” Dorothy Parker
    what should be said every time some bigot opens his or her mouth.
    Obviously a reference to my post mentioning Dorothy Parker above, since I have rarely seen a Dummie refer to her. :)

    But of course, xchrom and friends miss the point I made about Parker: in the statement xchrom quotes, Parker was not attempting to assassinate the character of a particular person for his lifetime with a crude, Savage-like attack, complete with fecal matter, lube, and bodily fluids. Parker was merely stating her opinion on human sexuality in general. To equate Dan Savage's character assassination with Parker's droll philosophical statement makes not one iota of logical sense. Then again, our friends in DUmmieland have never been known for their stellar brains. :)

    So, since they are clearly reading this thread, here is a message to the DUmmies: There is no way to compare a skilled and gifted literary light to the junior high gross-out prank of that man-child, Dan Savage. And to decide that a person is a bigot because he or she disdains corrosive and vulgar pranks that destroy any person's reputation is entirely nonsensical and wrong.

    Savage is a monkey throwing feces and thinking he is a wit. Those of you who admire the feces he has splashed on the wall as some kind of educated, witty form of artistic expression need to actually study art and literature.

    In general, the left's infatuation with Savage's google bomb is infantile. And the more childish gay activists act, the less likely the adults in the room will think they are ready for the responsibilities of marriage.
    Last edited by Elspeth; 01-08-2012 at 10:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Star Member WorseBeforeBetter
    6. Dorothy Parker would be *lost* on the bigots...

    View profile
    bless their little hearts. (Geez, six years in the South and I'm finally catching on...)
    It obviously escapes this DUmmy that all the evidence of bigotry comes from the left. As for the South, please leave immediately before you pollute God's country with your vile self.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    It obviously escapes this DUmmy that all the evidence of bigotry comes from the left. As for the South, please leave immediately before you pollute God's country with your vile self.
    WorseBeforeBetter needs to be reminded that it was Southern Democrats that kept Jim Crow alive and kicking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,121
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002139171

    right on maude... (29 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

    View profile

    What is all the s******ing about Santorum...
    I mean the frothy mix part of things. Okay, I will admit that I have chuckled at Dan Savage's savage attempt at payback for Ricky's seemingly anti-gay crusade, but consider this:

    If gay man-sex should not be looked upon with disgust, why does Dan create such a nasty image of the by-product of said action?
    Star Member justiceischeap (6,317 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
    7. Dan Savage asked his readers to coin the definition

    View profile
    Not all of his readers are homosexual, so the definition for Santorum, the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex, was the chosen winner. The whole reason Savage did this was because of this:

    Santorum made his comments in an April 2003 interview with the Associated Press. Discussing a recent United States Supreme Court decision striking down an anti-sodomy law, 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.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaig...m%22_neologism

    So, in a way it could be argued that associating Santorum with something that most would associate with gay sex is the intent because Santorum is so staunchly against homosexuality, is irony and not humor.
    right on maude... (29 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
    8. I don't know if it's ironic but it seems pretty contradictory.

    I read his column every week because he's a bright, funny individual (plus the freaky stuff people are into). But I always go away with this feeling that describing sex acts in such crude terms and advocating for anything (as long as both people are into it) really treats sex in an animalistic fashion. If we are evolved beings, shouldn't we act in a more enlightened way?
    It just goes to prove that many liberals are NOT enlightened, but are at the emotional and developmental level as a 9 year old.
    Star Member Dreamer Tatum (6,024 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
    4. +1 if anal sexual congress, especially between men, is supposed be as dignified

    View profile
    as any other sexual practice, that attitude is totally at odds with the shame many are trying to attach to Santorum.

    But as I have said, pee pee and poo poo and gay jokes seem to be perfectly appropriate for people who consider themselves
    more evolved than those they ridicule.
    "Consider themselves" is the operative words here.
    JoePhilly (10,151 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
    28. Very simple ... Which by product of "man-sex" (your term) upset "Frothy Santorum" and ...

    View profile
    his supporters most?

    To Santorum, and many in the GOP, to be called "gay" ... or "sissy" ... or "girly man" ... as an attack intended to diminish the opponent.

    And so, the response here is to call Frothy Santorum" that which he would use to diminish others.

    Those who don't "get that" ... might hust have issues similar to "Frothy's".
    Smearing someone else because that is what you THINK that person would say to diminish others.

    No, it simply reflects back on the person trying to smear Santorum. And on homosexuality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    2,121
    Star Member jberryhill (21,062 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
    13. You might want to look at the posting history of our new friend

    View profile

    Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 04:24 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

    Incidentally, the point of the OP, posted by this now-tombstoned troll, was to get "s******ing" in a headline.
    If gay man-sex should not be looked upon with disgust, why does Dan create such a nasty image of the by-product of said action?
    So the gay presence, and liberal PC influence on DU is enough to get someone tombstoned for asking this question?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Carol View Post
    http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002139171

    It just goes to prove that many liberals are NOT enlightened, but are at the emotional and developmental level as a 9 year old.
    They're enjoying this the same way that they enjoy making farts with their armpits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,071
    In what universe does equating a politician with excrement and bodily fluids qualify as demonstrating either education, wit, or an appreciation of art or beauty?
    The same universe that thinks "Piss Christ" is art.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,873
    I'm not justifying Dan Savage and his fans' use of Santorum to describe what they are using it to describe.

    Savage was responding to Rick's comparison of homosexuality to "man on dog action" (Rick's words). It is an insult to gays to compare them to those who abuse animals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,071
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I'm not justifying Dan Savage and his fans' use of Santorum to describe what they are using it to describe.
    And yet...

    Savage was responding to Rick's comparison of homosexuality to "man on dog action" (Rick's words). It is an insult to gays to compare them to those who abuse animals.
    Not only do you in the next breath justify it you defend it.

    You have to be quite a contortionist these days to be a Libtard.


    right on maude... (29 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore


    as any other sexual practice, that attitude is totally at odds with the shame many are trying to attach to Santorum.
    You mean like calling TEA Party members tea baggers?

    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    10,273
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I'm not justifying Dan Savage and his fans' use of Santorum to describe what they are using it to describe.

    Savage was responding to Rick's comparison of homosexuality to "man on dog action" (Rick's words). It is an insult to gays to compare them to those who abuse animals.
    The degree to which Savage escalated his "shitty" prank went above and beyond anything remotely necessary. In 2003, Rick Santorum made a derogatory comment heard by, at most, a single-digit percentage of the American people, most of whom didn't know or care who Santorum was. The man-on-dog comment would have evaporated after its millisecond of fame with CSPAN viewers and other political junkies, and no one would have remembered it afterwards.

    What Savage did was create an everlasting Google character assassination that could never be removed. Aided and abetted by his friends on MSNBC (Maddow, O'Donnell), Current TV (Olbermann), HBO (Bill Maher) and Comedy Central (Stewart, Colbert), Savage spread the Google bomb far and wide, with exhortations for young, tech savvy gays and liberals to "Google Santorum."

    And Savage has never stopped. The comment was made in 2003--2003! Think about that. 2003 was the beginning of the Iraq War, the SARS outbreak, Hurricane Isabel, the space shuttle Columbia, the very first Pirates of the Carribean movie, Kelly Clarkson's first big hit, and no Lady Gaga in sight.

    Isn't there a point where Savage's lethally bitchy need for revenge is sated?

    Or is Google now the way for the temporarily personally aggrieved to destroy people's reputations forever?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •