Via HuffPo, Santorum was at CPAC channeling his inner Ryan Sorba:
"My thoughts are this," he said, in a morning speech before Conservative Political Action Conference. "The military is there for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to protect and defend the United States of America."
Exactly right, Rick. Which means your concern for what they do in their private time is a side issue, and you should perhaps get over it.
Or better yet, why not get over yourself? You were voted down for a reason, Ricky. Or rather, for many valid reasons. One of which is, you're a pompous, condescending jackass. You are a genuinely unlikeable human being, and I'd vote for Barack Obama before I'd vote for you.
Santorum once stated that homosexuality was at the top of a slippery slope to incest and bestiality. Then, in 2003, he stated, "That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." Maybe on Planet TightAss that's a concession, but in the real world it's still comparing gays to monsters.
But for me, the most offensive, wrong-headed part of Santorum's remarks?
"We have a volunteer army," he added. "They can un-volunteer too."
Yeah. You spineless weasel. We're at war on two fronts. With the boffo foreign affairs team we've got, I feel sure we'll be dealing with Iran soon. Then, of course, there are a million Chinese soldiers looming off-stage. And Rick Santorum wants people who have volunteered to fight and die for their country (and for you) to "un-volunteer" because they don't meet his morally-constipated standard!
Is he going to sign up to replace them? Will the Rick Santorums and the Ryan Sorbas be lining up to enlist?
Hey, Rick... Why don't you drop by and pick up Ryan Sorba, and the two of you bugger off. Seriously. Those of us who would work to see our Constitution upheld and defended have important work to do right now, and the last thing we need is distraction from the mission.
2 comments:
I take issue with moralists. I don't want them to preach to me that the transformation of this country starts with our morals. I would rather we stick to economics and the rule of Constitutional law and limited government and strong national defense ... and that is it.
Unless, of course, we're talking about Kevin Jennings. And then I'm all fucking over it up in everyone's face.
Having been in Clinton's Army (actually, Reagan's, then Bush I's, then Clinton's), I believe I have enough right to say that don't ask don't tell works. Leave it alone. No one gives a shit about anyone's sexual preference; we just need to know if we can count on you when the shit hits the fan.
BTW, my URL has changed (sorry, I had technical and virus issues). I'm back to http://feedyouradhd.blogspot.com
When you talk about Jennings I'm with you 100%. But I'd be after any straight person who wanted to give kids explicit sexual information and reading material, too. Separate issues, to my mind.
As to DADT, if nobody in the military cares about orientation (which I believe is probably true), why keep it? In the American military, it's perfectly all right to say "I'm a Muslim" (with all that might imply), but not "I'm gay". Think about that.
I just don't believe repealing DADT would have negative consequences.
On a separate note, fixed you on the blogroll. Thanks for the heads up!
Post a Comment