General discussion


Rick Santorum's Google problem

By AV . ·
Tags: Off Topic
Rick Santorum is running for President of the US, but his Google search results leave a lot to be desired in a candidate. Just Google his name and you'll see what I mean. I sort of feel sorry for the guy.

Google will not remove those results either, saying that its up to Santorum to get the results removed. Thats not going to happen. I think he might have to live with this - forever. I guess the moral of this story is payback is a b*tch.


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

82 total posts (Page 5 of 9)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

It's excused

by AnsuGisalas In reply to I issue a challenge to yo ...

because it's funny.
Not the vulgarity per se, but the position Santorum is left in.
Teetering and fuming.
Besides, Google has refused to change results over other concerns, it's one of the good things they've done - not letting themselves get dragged into the political tool-shed.
If they don't alter to fix antisemitism or racist attacks on Michele Obama, why would they alter to fix this? The only reason this is even newsworthy is because Santorum is wunning for pwesident, and because it's funny to see how he fumes and sputters.

Collapse -

Funny is in the eye of the beholder.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to It's excused

One person's funny can be another's yawn of boredom, and another's source of disgust.

Collapse -


by AnsuGisalas In reply to Funny is in the eye of th ...

And just because one person is disgusted that's not the whole picture.
If one other person is amused, then it has already served its purpose.

Collapse -

Which speaks to 'character'. *NT*

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to Funny is in the eye of th ...
Collapse -

I respectfully disagree

by CharlieSpencer In reply to I issue a challenge to yo ...

"The WORST CASE SCENARIO should have resulted in respectfully agreeing to disagree."

Minorities should respectfully disagree with being verbally abused by elected officials? No bus boycotts, no lunch counter sit-ins, no protest marches? Who determines the limits of respect, the protestor or the object of the protest?

Yes, what Savage did fell well outside the bounds of respectful disagreement. I'm now trying to determine where that line lies, and who draws it.

Collapse -

And does it fall

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to I respectfully disagree

With speeches made in the House or outside Interviews.

If it was to happen that Comments made under Parliamentary Privilege that would effectively kill the concept of Parliamentary Privilege and turn the Pollies into even more Toothless Tigers than they actually/currently are.


Collapse -

Is that possible?

by boxfiddler Moderator In reply to And does it fall
Collapse -

The vulgar crap: context and analysis

by DelbertPGH In reply to I issue a challenge to yo ...

Dan Savage has figured out a way to trick Google into putting, at the top of its search list for "santorum", a web page that defines santorum as a mixture of lubricant and feces that sometimes leaks out after **** intercourse. There is no such definition in actual English. Rick Santorum's name, what you'd expect to find at the top of the search, actually appears third on the hit list. (Second is a Wikipedia article discussing the Dan Savage hoax.) This is a breathtakingly nasty thing to do to a national politician; I don't know of anything else like it. Savage accomplishes this by encouraging people to put links on their web pages to; Google puts the page with the most links at the top of its search list (my statement oversimplifies a bit how Google works.) So, that there is your vulgar crap. (Or your frothy crap, hah hah.)

Savage intensely dislikes Rick Santorum's positions on the social control of individual sexuality, particularly with respect to limiting homosexual acts, in part because Savage himself is gay. He took special offense to Santorum's interview where he said that legitimizing **** sex would ultimately wreck respect for marriage, which is the foundation of society and was founded for the protection of children. Santorum strictly defines marriage as a monogamous, consecrated relationship between one man and one woman.

Dan Savage believes in sexual liberty, as well as in love, family, monogamy, and the whole host of traditional virtues... so long as they work. Savage believes that if you can't repress your urges, they will come out anyway, and the sex drive is full of urges that can't be locked away without psychological harm. He believes in liberty, and in a sort of pragmatic realism, as applied to morality.

Rick Santorum believes in a morality not discovered by man, but handed down from God to man. He believes that marriage is the sole vessel in which sexual urges may be expressed, and that society has an interest in restricting sexual behavior, even within the bounds of a marriage. Note that he opposes the judgement against Connecticut on the Griswold case, about 1962, I think, where the state claimed to have an interest in preventing the distribution of information or advertising of birth control techniques. This is where the right to privacy was "discovered" by liberal justices in the constitution. Santorum stated in the same interview with the "man on dog" reference that he believed government should regulate individual sexual behavior in the interest of social stability, and I presume because it would please God for government to enforce God's law.

As for what Santorum actually said:
"Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? 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 " (At this point, the interviewer cut Santorum off with a comment, and he did not complete his sentence.)

The "one thing" Santorum is talking about here is the social foundation of marriage. He says he's not picking out homosexuality alone as a threat to marriage; normalizing man on child and man on dog would also change the way we see marriage and would ruin its value. I draw the inference from his statement that he thinks man on man, man on dog, and man on child are all abominable conditions that must be suppressed.

Santorum says he doesn't abhor homosexuals, only homosexual acts. I suppose Dan Savage doesn't abhor Santorum, only what he stands for.

I certainly can't defend Savage for the gimmick. It's not unequalled in its nastiness; it's kind of on the level of South Carolina Republicans spreading rumors in the 2000 primary about John McCain having an illegitimate child with a black woman. Politics is often very dirty work, and Savage has chosen to play that way.

I don't believe, though, that Savage's trick has cost Santorum a single vote. Probably it's earned him sympathy, if anything.

Collapse -

Delbert, you got me to chime back in

by maxwell edison In reply to The vulgar crap: context ...

Kudos to you for a great message. And for those who didn't bother to read the entire context of Santorum's comments, thanks for posting it.

Santorum is free to believe what he wants, as is Savage. Personally speaking, I'm pretty much a live and let live kinda' guy, and as such would probably oppose Santorum on some of his social issue positions. I also think that any introduction of many of those social issues into the current political debate is done as a wedge issue, and will only detract from what should be the REAL debate.

It seems, if anything, Savage proved Santorum correct when he (Santorum) suggested a moral decline is introduced into the fabric of society by the practice of homosexuality. I would also suspect that there are a lot of gays in this country who cringe when Savage opens his mouth to spew such vulgar venom.

I'm amazed at the people who justify Savage's actions simply as pay back.

I do disagree with one thing you said, however.

You said, ???Santorum says he doesn't abhor homosexuals, only homosexual acts. I suppose Dan Savage doesn't abhor Santorum, only what he stands for.???

I strongly suspect that Dan Savage does indeed abhor Rick Santorum.

Collapse -

Not just what he stands for...

by DelbertPGH In reply to Delbert, you got me to ch ...

... but <i>everything</i> he stands for.

Back to After Hours Forum
82 total posts (Page 5 of 9)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums