Finally. The Catholic cult seems to get a free pass in all media, even though they’ve raped countless children.

Yes Rick the relationship is fine if its consensual between a priest and a 15 year old.

Dear Republicans either you ask President Obama for his longer longer long birth certificate and run with that or find a new candidate. Because with front runners like Rick Santorum you guys should think about re-scheduling the elections until 2016.

“Even a study that was commissioned and paid for by the Catholic Church shows that only 27% of the victims of sexual abuse by priests were aged 15 years or older. Sixteen percent of them were between 8 and 10 years old, and 6% were 7 or younger.”

The interview with Santorum was from April 23, 2003. 

Your stats are from data collected from March 2003, and ended in February 2004. 

Aren’t you doing the very thing here, that you accuse Breitbart of doing here: 
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrew-breitbart-tells-cenk-uygur-his-rape-rant-was-a-stunt/ 

Not giving a rats ass about the story, but exploiting it, and twisting it, to discredit Santorum and lash out at Breitbart…?

Why doesn’t anybody call out Muslims for abusing young boys?

Proof:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346514/Muslim-leader-raped-young-boy-attended-mosque-religious-lessons.html

Did Muslims try to cover it up like Penn State & the Catholic Church did?

 I think you are missing the whole point of the story.

 Rick Santorum, a republican presidential candidate, a front runner for the GOP is clearly covering up child rape making excuses in an interview and the only thing came to your mind was “Why doesn’t anybody call out Muslims for abusing young boys?” 

Wow….  stay classy conservatives.

If 27% were 15 or older, doesn’t that mean 73% were 15 & under? Last I checked, that’s illegal & not considered “perfectly fine relationship” like Santorum suggests. That’s basically what Sandusky did to little boys in the Penn State locker room. Im bringing up Sandusky because Santorum honored him with an award for his work with children.

How did a troll like Tommy get hired by Mediaite? Was Charles Manson not available? Did Pol Pot not apply? You’re a partisan joke, TC. You should head over to Current and get a job massaging Olbermann.

Rick Santorum is sick in the head. I hope his campaign lasts for a while so everyone could see & hear what conservatism is all about.

Not only raped countless kids but also covered it up.

I’m guessing you didn’t read the story?

So Tommy is a bad guy for posting this but it’s okay for Rick Santorum to justify child rape by Catholic priests? Not surprised Santorum defends child rape. He did attend Penn State after all, even honored Sandusky for his work with children. But yeah, such a person running for president on the grounds of morality is just fine but Tommy went too far by posting this article.

no, i am not. i am following him on twitter, and know what his is about.

but i also think if he wants to disprove Santorum’s comments about ages, he should use data that was around when Santorum made those comments.

Okay, I’m not a Santorum fan, but I am struggling to understand where he is apologizing for child-rapists. His only nebulous “double-speak” is on the concept of whether or not “consent” makes something okay. It sounds like he’s saying that if liberals think two men having sex is okay because it’s consensual (not necessarily by law in some places, still), then statutory rape is okay as long as it’s consensual. I think, in his mind, both are wrong, but liberals are hypocrites for justifying one and not the other.

So, if Thomas Christopher is wondering why the media didn’t jump all over this, it’s because they have reading comprehension skills.

For no reason at all, Republicans take a shot at Muslims. Anything to distract from the fact Santorum basically defended child rape.

And Santorum wasn’t defending anyone, he was talking about a larger world view that created the climate that allowed it to happen, in his opinion. 

Well, here’s your chance:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/15/1065052/-Announcing-Operation-Hilarity-Let-s-keep-the-GOP-clown-show-going-

Even without the reference to the study, Santorum’s remarks are astounding. He is basically saying that the Church and the priests involved are not really responsible for what went on and the subsequent cover-up.

As to the study and the timeline, that in no way changes Santorum’s words or their validity. If there was an interview with a moderate or liberal saying something Luke this the screams from the right would be deafening.

Nothing this freak says or does regarding the church should surprise anyone.  It has come to the point where I no longer only blame the cowards in the Catholic Church, the priests who stood by and said nothing, the Bishops who moved the rapist around, or the Pope who does not care.  The collective law enforcement in his country has proven they are  not only cowardly but complicit along with the Bishops by not investigation and pressing charges.  I would also like to see just one politician make a statement along the lines of Irish Premier Enda Kenny, but I won’t hold my breath.  To see what a politician with guts looks like regarding the systematic rape torture and cover-up of children by the church watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo5MXrqbDeA

Anyone who would overlook CHILD RAPE to make a backhanded attack against homosexual adults has no grasp of reality & really needs to look in the mirror before they preach morality ever again.

I actually kind of agree with you. I think that Santorum’s views generally on homosexuality are repellent, but I think you have to really be looking at his words with a fairly jaundiced eye in order to see an “apologia” here of child rape. (Either that or I’m completely missing something in my assessment.)

Don’t live in any of those states but I’m glad my state of Minnesota went to Santorum.

Birth control is wrong but child rape is just fine.

I get your point on the stats and the rationale behind it, but in reality this scandal with abuse has been going on for decades and I agree that Santorum wasn’t defending child rapists, but he simply should have denounced it as a crime which should be prosecuted and left it at that. Sometimes saying less is wiser than saying more. 

I see it as more of him trying to explain why he thinks priest do it. He is blaming it on modern culture. Which is total bullshit because priest have been screwing young boys, for as long as there have been priest and young boys.  This is why he got crushed in the pennsylvania senate race and if he somehow wins the nomination(which he wont) he will get obliterated by Obama. If you haven’t yet read up on the Terry Shivo fiasco, Santorum was front in center on that beauty. And Pennsylvania never forgave him.

 That was really pathetic.

I know it’s difficult, but try and stay on topic.  Catholic church, rape etc no discussion of Islam in the article.

 I think we all know Santorum is frothy. 

The question is whether Thomas Christopher is employing FNC-like fact distortion tactics to score points (or a job) with Current in their pissing contest against Breitbart. 

That interpretation I’ll buy. (But it still falls somewhat short of being a child-rape “apologist.”)

And, yes, I remember the Schiavo matter well. It was a definite case of overreach on the part of Republicans on social issues and if Santorum gets the nomination — and I agree with you that he’s still a longshot — that will return to the national stage as a winning issue for Dems.

No I agree I don’t see the child rape apologist analogy. But he dances around these subjects in a very strange way. He also has called a child born by a rape “a gift”. That is never going to fly with 98% of the women in this country. Of course the Republican Machine know this and are handing the Romney people all the ammunition he needs, to destroy him. Santorum will be gone by May. I hope he does stick around till April though because thats when the PA primaries are and I would get a chuckle seeing him lose to Romney in his own state lol.

Tommy always does this. Don’t know why, wish I had a job where I got paid to troll my employer’s webpage.

Please, Rick Santorum has been defending the Church for the systematic rape and torture of children for a long time and this is not the first time he tried to shift blame. So a grown man, a priest, holds down an 8 year old who is struggling to get free, anally rapes him and Rick thinks is due to location. The man is a sick.

“When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While there’s no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Rick S

It is beyone him to denounce the church. 

Santorum wasn’t apologizing for them, he was explaining why some people do…big difference! 

We can remind the 50 pound 8 year old child who was held down by a grown man and anally raped and then warned that if he told anyone his parents will go to hell, that it also happened in other religions. I’m sure that knowledge combined with the lack accountability of the church will make things right.

So being a child rapist has some wiggle room in the world of excuses for you and Rick as long as there is a good reason? I’m trying to understand your comment here.

I don’t read him as saying its ok.  I read him as denouncing homosexuality, not as approving of pedophilia.

Do people here really believe Mr. Santorum condones pedophilia?  Or denies its existence?  This is awfully thin.  Tommy is as busy as a fluffer at a porno shoot, trying to make a big deal out of nothing at all…

 That’s what I thought.
I get that the left really hates Santorum.  Cool.  But do they have to make up shit that he didn’t say?

” You have the problem within the church.”

How is that NOT saying anything about the church???

 How is he OVERLOOKING child rape when he starts out by saying:
“You have the problem within the church.”

Explain that logic.

It’s just Tommy being Tommy. There’s nothing that can’t be spun to make progressive on the side of angels (that definitely don’t exist) and conservatives Satan’s own minions. Like suggesting that notoriously vicious homophobe Rick Santorum is supportive of homosexual child rape. Shit. Wall. Sticks. Doesn’t. Whatever. It’s the thought that counts.

But remember that time he saved a couple of naughty, non-existent Weinerphilic teenage girls from Twitter? #hesmyhero

 First sentence out of Santorum’s mouth, in response to the question, was:
“You have the problem within the church.”

Now explain how that equates Santorum defending child rape?

 I read the story.
Where did you get a tacit approval of child rape from in here?
“You have the problem within the church.”

 Santorum:
“You have the problem within the church.”

How the f is that defending child rape?

 ”You have the problem within the church.”

How is that basically saying the the church is not responsible?

Another possibility is flailing hackery. That gets my vote. 

 The very first sentence out of his mouth was:
“You have the problem within the church.”

Explain where you got that impression from.

 Santorum’s first sentence:
“You have the problem within the church.”

How is that a free pass?

No, he’s not saying that at all. In fact, he said, at the same time “I have no problem with homosexuality, I have a problem with homosexual acts.”

He’s against it. Always has been. Howard Dean called his remarks “Gay bashing.”

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-04-23/politics/santorum.gays_1_santorum-traditional-heterosexual-relationships-homosexuality/2?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

You have to be quite a revisionist to spin that into any sort of endorsement of the priests responsible.

They’re willing to believe it, and repeat it ad nauseum. They couldn’t care less if it’s true or not.

This is who they are, this is what they do. With a surprising exception or two.

It’s also telling that Tommy is seeking outrage over 8 years old comments in order to further distract from the current rapes he’d rather ignore on behalf of his Occupy friends. 

Whatever works, and even if it doesn’t.

Yes! Please do.

Then you should continue reading..

“In this case, what we’re talking about, basically, is
priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re
not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re
talking about a basic homosexual relationship.”

Then

” Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine
relationship as long as it’s consensual between people. If you view the
world that way, and you say that’s fine, you would assume that you
would see more of it.”

Come on we can lead you to facts but we can’t make you think.

Ask yourself. Were the post-pubescent men relationships with the priests consensual?

key word. “post-pubescent”

 You fail to see the irony and hypocrisy in your republican front runner.

 Can only lead you guys to the facts which is in this article, I can’t make you think.

 PorkChops;
First off, you’re completely overlooking the VERY FIRST LINE:
“You have the problem within the church.”

Now until he says something ELSE that makes you think he’s OKAY with it, then you have a real problem making the case that he’s okay with it.  Or that he’s apologizing for the church, when he starts out by saying that “”You have the problem within the church.”

One more time:
“You have the problem within the church.”

Now what you’ve done is you’ve taken one statement:
” Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine
relationship as long as it’s consensual between people. If you view the
world that way, and you say that’s fine, you would assume that you
would see more of it.”

To make it sound like he’s “okay” with it.  When clearly, he’s making the argument:
“And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as
long as it’s in the privacy of your own home, this “right to privacy,”
then why be surprised that people are doing things that are deviant
within their own home? If you say, there is no deviant as long as it’s
private, as long as it’s consensual, then don’t be surprised what you
get. You’re going to get a lot of things that you’re sending signals
that as long as you do it privately and consensually, we don’t really
care what you do. And that leads to a culture that is not one that is
nurturing and necessarily healthy. I would make the argument in areas
where you have that as an accepted lifestyle, don’t be surprised that
you get more of it.”

Again… he’s not approving of it at all.  And its a complete lie to suggest he is.

 I need to repeat this sentence for just one more time:
” And that leads to a culture that is not one that is
nurturing and necessarily healthy.”

 You’re failing to be honest.
If you’re going to suggest that the candidate approves of child rape, you’re being more then a little dishonest.

 And once again, I have to ask you:
Where did you get a tacit approval of child rape from in here?
“You have the problem within the church.”

Not to mention when he writes:
“And that leads to a culture that is not one that is nurturing and necessarily healthy. ”

Or just later when he argues:
“…We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now,
that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I
would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the
family. And 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. Does that undermine
the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

Now I get that people don’t AGREE with him.
But don’t LIE about what he said.

When the man says that there are sodomy laws for a purpose, you can’t argue that he is endorsing child rape.

 ”…We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now,
that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I
would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the
family. And 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. Does that undermine
the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

That’s from the same interview.
Now explain to me how a man who feels that sodomy laws are there for a purpose excuses child rape.

Thank you, finally someone that gets it. The above article is just one of many that snips a few lines out of the whole interview and then presents that snippet completely out of context. Before this article, there have been others that do the same exact same thing. For awhile it was the beastility thing, now this. Read the WHOLE  interview if you want to understand what he is really talking about.

I am not a big fan of Santorum, but it is completely out of line to suggest that he would try to excuse child rape. I think that this article by Tommy is by far the most disgusting thing I have ever read on this site.  

I’m guessing that you didn’t read the WHOLE interview that this little snippet came out of either, huh? It is quite easy to pull a few lines out an interview and then spin it to try and make the readers believe something that is clearly not true. I am not a fan of Santorum, but to insinuate that he somehow supports or excuses child rape is the most disgusting and vile thing I can think of.  

Didn’t I just see this photo of Santorum? There must be a cost savings to reusing the same photos in articles.   I see Huffington Post doing that sometimes.

 ” It’s amazing that this hasn’t gotten more press ”

What’s amazing is that you are not just a far left hack but a dishonest one as well. Big Journalism has a couple of articles up about you that you do not like.

Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher Defends Occupy Rape Deniers
http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2012/02/15/mediaites-tommy-christopher-defends-occupy-rape-deniers/

Keith Olbermann & Tommy Christopher Intentionally Ignoring Significance Of Occupy Wall Street Assaults
http://bigjournalism.com/lstranahan/2012/02/15/keith-olbermann-tommy-christopher-intentionally-ignoring-significance-of-occupy-wall-street-assaults/

They also link to others in the past that make you look like a fool. You are so outraged by the truth that you have to fight back with childish accusations to try and get even.

The only thing that really amazes me is how stupid some of the libs are here for defending this crap.

I take that back. I forgot about Weiner.

Carry on . Tell us how Santorum is cool with child pedophilia.

Its a direct quote. 

Tommy Christopher, you should be completely ashamed of yourself. You know good and well that Rick Santorum is not excusing child rape or priests involved in sexual abuse. You need to take this down and offer a public apology for your poor judgment right now. This is out of bounds.

And let’s be clear: This is not about Right or Left, it’s about Right and Wrong. You have willfully misrepresented someone’s words as a defense of child rape and that is despicable. You, sir, are an embarrassment to journalism.

Where does he discuss “how” the Church was responsible?  Sure, he locates the site of the problem, but it sure sounds like he’s putting most of the blame for the problem on the sexual revolution.  To be sure, that’s nothing like endorsing pedophilia (and I think Tommy’s just busting Breitbart’s balls here), but it’s not exactly owning up either, which come to think of it, was Church’s problem for a long time as well.  Where does Santorum speak out about that?  Maybe I missed it.  The guy’s words put me sleep. 

What are you talking about? How is writing two posts in one day “ignoring” it?

 I’m not a fan of Santorum, either.
And like you, I think that its pretty reprehensible that people who dislike Santorum MORE then us are accusing him of approving of child rape.

If I were a liberal, I’d do an advertiser boycott over this.  Instead, I’m just going to stop visiting Media-ite.

 Pardon, but nowhere is it a direct quote that Santorum approves or excuses child rape.

Read the complete interview.

 PorkChops obviously has a hard on for Santorum.
Again… that’s fine.  Some people just hate.  But to make up junk about what Santorum said?  Not cool.

 Where does he discuss “how” the Church was responsible?  Sure, he
locates the site of the problem, but it sure sounds like he’s putting
most of the blame for the problem on the sexual revolution.

Are you actually suggesting that he didn’t go after the catholic church enough by saying “You have the problem within the church.”?

Because he’s what… not specific enough?  That’s a case of projecting your own language onto Santorum.
“…And 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. Does that undermine the fabric
of our society? I would argue yes, it does.”

It doesn’t exactly sound like he’s condoning anything, here.

Where? In the first sentence of the piece he wrote with the remarks being referred to:

Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership.

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

He goes on to point to several other contributing problems within the church. It’s weird how no one has managed to find that piece and link it until now. Then again, it did take me 5 whole minutes to track it down.

It’s only 8 paragraphs, and yet it seems that only one of them matters or was even written.

Have you ever read that, Tommy? Have you ever spent 30 seconds looking for it, what with it being the original source?

Do you mean the one about Breitbart’s condemning them being a stunt? And the one where you parrot Olbermann declaring them to be non-Occupy rapes that should not be attributed to Occupy?

Or are you talking about this one, where you try to deflect the issue via an absolutely dishonest Santorum non-sequitur?

Your concern is duly noted. Unfortunately, it’s for the Occupy narrative and not for basic decency.

That would require shame and a sense of decency. Ain’t gonna happen.

 http://www.occupypatriarchy.org/

A Republican spewed this garbage so its all good. They can do no wrong with the right wingnuts.

He’s blaming liberalism for the problem of child rape within the Catholic Church.  That’s positively despicable.  The whole attempt to not only gloss over child rape but to try to place the blame on liberal ideology within society is loathsome.  Pedophiles aren’t motivated by political leanings.  This is ethically dishonest.  He should be ashamed of himself and publicly shamed too.

Hypocrites for justifying one and not the other????  One is morally obligated to condemn statutory rape since that does not fall within the limits of consenting adults.  The other IS between consenting adults.  It’s immoral to attempt to conflate the two.

He is saying the problem is liberalism causes priests to think that if it is okay between consenting adults, it is okay to rape an underage teenager because he may have also consented.  That couldn’t be farther from how any liberal I know sees it.  What is clear about statutory rape is that under a certain age you do not have the maturity to consent.  That the underage need to be protected until they reach the age of consent.  

What Santorum is saying is pure projection.  How dare he think such thoughts then try to say that is how the liberal mind thinks.     

He is saying the problem is liberalism causes priests to think that if it is okay between consenting adults, it is okay to rape an underage teenager because he may have also consented.  That couldn’t be farther from how any liberal I know sees it.  What is clear about statutory rape is that under a certain age you do not have the maturity to consent.  That the underage need to be protected until they reach the age of consent.  

What Santorum is saying is pure projection.  How dare he think such thoughts then try to say that is how the liberal mind thinks.     

No Santorum, it doesn´t go ” back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles.”

Pedophiles and homosexuality in the Catholic Church have existed long BEFORE there was a LGBT movement demanding rightfully same rights for anyone. It´s the old, disgusting shtick of equating homosexuals and pedophiles.

The Catholic Church is guilty of having protected pedophiles. End of story.

Santorum is a liar also. According to the John Jay report of the victims 22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years. So we are basically NOT talking about post-pubescent boys. We are talking in the vast majority of cases about pedophiles abusing and raping children age 14 and younger. 

 Santorum did worse than that. He claimed that liberals encourage this despicable behavior, and that appears to say that the Catholic Church is liberal? 

The key word that Santorum leaves out is ADULTS. What consenting ADULTS do is none of his business.  

So is it Woopi “Rape-Rape” Goldberg or a Kennedy running for president???

Like buying lightbulbs? Eating transfats? Salt, sugar, soda? Driving SUV’S? Earning lots of money? Keeping your thermostat above 72 degrees in the winter and lower in the summer? Buying the health insurance that you want? Allowing smokers in your restaurant/place of business? Being responsible for your own birth control? LOL. жалюгідні вівці!

Of course he didn’t.  Tommy Christopher do proper research?  Ridiculous.  

Not that I blame him.  I’ve read enough of his material to know that he really has a problem in that regard, suggesting that either no one ever taught him proper research skills or that he was too stupid to comprehend what he was taught.  Either way I blame his bosses at Mediaite, who should have figured out his shortcomings by now and either given him a research assistant or simply not print his material.  The fact that they do print it makes me think that they’re engaged in some bizarre, rather cruel practical joke at his expense.

Keep reading, yu’ll get there eventually.

Keep reading.

Covered up from the very top of the church.  The pope – not the pope then but still in a position of extreme power – knew what was going on and instead of doing something to help the children being raped by his priests he swept it under the run.  He moved the rapists from one parish to another, hoping that they’d just stop.  Maybe.  Or perhaps he didn’t really care that much; he just wanted to not think about it.  He and they prefer to spend their time denouncing the use of condoms and other forms of contraception.

How many times are you going to ask me the same question? I said keep reading.

Not true.  Santorum was saying that it was the liberal environment that allowed them to feel that what they were doing was okay.  That’s being an apologist.  He said that priests in a position of extreme power who raped young children – after an “intense investigation” into the matter many years after the rape scandal blew up the decided to say most of those raped were post-pubescent, like that’s better – were the same as me and my wife having “private time” in our bedroom.  That’s not only an apologist it’s the height of absurdity.

Santorum referred to the findings of an “investigation” done by the church that found most of the children who were raped were post-pubescent.  In their warped, apologist minds, that somehow made the rapes less of a rape because the children had gone through puberty.  What an odious statement!
Like it’s someone not as bad because the priest – a man in a position of power and extreme influence over those children – wasn’t raping a 3-year old.  
I was raised a catholic and as a child I was devout.  Once I was old enough to look at the institution with an inquisitive eye however that quickly changed.

Tommy’s sensationalism in his headline and his article is honestly harming mediaite.  It is absurd on it’s face and dishonest to the bone.

I can’t believe TC and the left are so desperate to keep the One on his pedestal that they would lower themselves to this claptrap.

Oh please Tommy, it sounds more like anti-Catholic bigotry than whatever contorted turn-of-phrase you conjured. Was this done in conjunction with Media Matters, too?

How about railing against the lack of coverage over Obama’s campaign manager ridiculing hispanics?
I see the Media Matters Mainstreams covered that one up real quick!

Tommy, you need to find another role model. Fashioning yourself after Keith Olbermann isn’t pretty. Twisting the words of conservatives and spinning the words of liberals hasn’t worked for Olbermann, it ain’t working for you.

Um, read the very next sentence.

He’s not defending it. He’s blaming it on liberalism. IT’S IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THAT QUOTE.

Dude, learn to READ:

“In this case, what we’re talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.”

Translation:  ”In this case, the victims are not victims, they are willing, consensual participants in depravity.” 

Dude, he was not excusing it–he was explaing his views (and lots of others’) on why it does happen.  C’mon, man, it’s not hard to see.

You are not getting what he said!!  He was explaining why it happens. Get a clue!

Marrying the person they love?  Choosing what substances to ingest?  Determining their own reproductive future?

Do please tell me the last time you were prohibited from purchasing your favored light bulbs, or the last time that the climate control police invaded your house to adjust your thermostat.

But really, the hypocrisy is quite impressive.  Support *actually* denying people *actual* rights, and then bitch about infringements on your Constitutional right to an unrestricted choice in light bulbs that precisely no one has “infringed” upon.

Santorum: “Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership.”

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30 

Are you so bitter toward him that you honestly think he was apologizing for raping kids and or teens?  Do you really think that is what he meant?  He was explaining why some of this happens, simple as that.  I’m not a fan of Barack Obama, but if someone told me that HE said these things, I would have enough sense to realize that he is most likely not apologizing for raping kids.  C’mon, man, it common sense.  I think Rick is smart enough not to excuse this, especially in the middle of a presidential campaign.   

Santorum: “Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership.”

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Right, liberals are the reason the Catholic Church covered up the raping of litte boys by their priests.

Opposing child rape makes Tommy anti-Catholic? Okayyyyyyyyyy

Yes, because all of those things are comparable to child rape.

If you and MrPorkChop keep talking, we get a great view of what liberalism is about.  Rick is sick in the head, huh?  “Satanic hamster?”  that says a lot about you , partner.

It’s not harming Mediaite. You’re just mad because Tommy exposed your candidate for defending child rape.

Blame Tommy for posting an article & overlook the fact Santorum undermines child rape as consensual sex.

Santorum is defending it. He says it’s no different from consensual sex between homosexuals. If he’s not defending it, he’s completely clueless.

If Breitbart says it then it must be true. Is Breitbart going to try & obtain a picture of Tommy’s wiener & keep it on his phone also?

Please provide proof of these outrageous claims you’re making about a history of Rick Santorum defending child rape.  That’s crazy.  It seems that you are so blinded by your dislike of him that you are not using any common sense here.  Even others on this forum who dislike him are seeing that his words were not an excuse for rape. A few posts back, you said that it is “beyond him to denounce the church,”, yet, that was the FIRST think out of his mouth.  Your argument makes no sense.

No, the screams wouldn’t be deafening because we would have the common sense to know what he was actually saying here, muck like a lot of the liberals on this post have seen also.  Even though they may not like Rick, they are smart enough to know that he was not aplogizing.  If you READ THE ENTIRE PIECE CAREFULLY, you will see that he speaks against it.

Right, they made stuff up by quoting what he said to the AP in an interview. Meanwhile, the right keeps talking about Obama being born in Kenya & Michelle Obama hating “whitey” without any proof.

Once again, MrPorChop, you’re showing your brilliance on these posts. 

True, people who comment on Mediaite are as influential as presidential candidates. Also being a satanic hamster makes more sense than “jefwel” so that tells a lot about you partner.

Right, but we’re supposed to give them tax exempt status, give them billions in federal funding, & let them dictate our healthcare policies.

It is if you’re blind, especially willfully blind. Lots of that around here.

For Santorum, “no different from consensual sex between homosexuals”  means “ought to be a capital offense.” He’s not defending the institutionalized support of child-rape in the Catholic Church, he’s saying that any homosexual relationship is just as evil.

You can call that “clueless” if you like.  I prefer “dangerously deranged.”  

It sounds Safe Schools Czar™ approved to me, though without the encouragement and the school recruitment.

Can you read or just spew invective? Is Tommy sending unsolicited pictures of his schlong around Twitter?

Oh, there’s a really easy way to determine your reproductive future. Keep your pants on. And if you can’t, roll over.

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership.”
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

You need to read more than what just Tommy serves up. 

 Who’s suggested that they are, other than you?

Who do we blame for your utter lack of reading comprehension?

The liberals of course.

Um, the poster I was commenting to. Who do you blame for your utter lack of reading comprehension?

Why don’t you tell me. I don’t do searches for Tom y’s schlong but you apparently do.

Agreed

You had me thinking that perhaps I read it wrong so I went back and reread it and no he’s not explaining anything other than his belief that liberalism is somehow responsible for the attitudes that enable priests to rape boys.  I”m amazed at the cognitive dissonance when people start talking about the “Church”.  If any other institution sanctioned child rape it would be shut down in a heartbeat but since it’s a conservative religious organization then maybe the kids asked for it……

way to scretch a story out as to appear to have done some extensive research….but even liberals like me know how to operate calculators….and according to the stats you posted in your effort to shield sandtorum its clear that 51% of the rapes happened to children between the ages of 10 to 15…your use of the word apoligize is incorrect….what santorum was making is EXCUSES…

 it to bad that you stopped reading the article after the 1st line……talk about outta context…..people who take the same view as you SHOULD be monitored around children….maybe your little head rules your big head too…..just like the priests who get off by banging little boys

Are saying that the church “sanctions” child rape?  Are you kidding me?  You are really grasping for straws, here.  Also, his assertion is that the more”deviant” behavior is allowed to become “normal,” the more “deviance” is accepted and the boundaries are always being pushed.  Look at the the entertainment industry–20 years ago you had TV show that didn’t show NEARLY as much as you have today (language, nudity, violence), but it has now become so accepted, that it is “the norm.”  Well, they are always actively pushing the boundaries so that they may show more.  It has to do with morals slipping away from this culture.  Now, as it refers to his point about priests raping boys of any age, that is wrong.  Actually, I think they should, and will rot in hell, for such dispicable things.  I don’t really know why there are so many instances of rape in the Catholic priesthood, and, perhaps, he was trying to tie a coouple of things together that were a bit of a stretch, depending on your opinion.  But, he was in no way excusing it.  It’s just plain stupid to say that the church sanctions it; and, it’s just plain insulting to think that conservatives think that “they aslked for it.”  I’m a very conservative person, and I don’t know anyone on my cirle of friends or family who would feel that way.     

“but since it is a conservative religious organization then maybe the kids asked for it…”  That might be most stupid thing I’ve ever heard.  Once a priest rapes a child, he has just exposed himseld as not being a part of a “church,” and he has become a simple pedophile who cannot be punished enough, as far as I’m concerned.  But, please do not make the mistake of assuming that a conservative religious organization feels that “they asked for it.”  Now, you may have seen those kooks out in Kansas  who claim to be a Baptist church that protest in front of funerals, but that is not a true, Christ-following ”organization”.  They are as bad as any group I’ve ever seen, and they are not following what is taught in The Bible, by ANY means.  Partner, even the Bible tells us that there will be LOT of groups that claim to be true followers, but are just the opposite.   

That would only be being an apologist if he was saying it’s OK for that reason. He isn’t. What’s he’s saying is that the more depravity you pump into a culture, the more you’re going to get out and you shouldn’t be shocked when it happens. That’s an attack, not an endorsement. Santorum is clearly and squarely anti-depravity and any other suggestion is an outright and willful lie.

 So, you don’t know Kevin Jennings?

You brought it up, the consequences are yours. You wouldn’t have been talking about it if you weren’t thinking about it.

Just be yourself. Embrace who you are. It gets better.

Mine is fine. NDanielson what referring to things that consenting ADULTS do. Who’s to blame for your comprehension fail? Have you tried mouthing the words while you read?

Not if it means I should be scouring the interwebz for Tommy’s junk. I’ll leave that up to you.

They have made a mess of the school system.

True, we should let conservatives run the schools so that we could teach our kids that the scientific method is superseded by the Book of Genesis.

Did you try mouthing this before you posted it?

“NDanielson what referring to things that consenting ADULTS do.”

I am a Reagan conservative who disagrees with Tommy plenty. I do, however, respect the man so much it’s scary. He is right on target with this article. Santorum equates gay unions to pedophilia which is so disgusting, so repugnant that’s it’s almost satire. But it’s true. For anyone to vote for this man must have an obama wish because no republican who disagrees with our current president, can actually believe Santorum will win in Nov. Brave Tommy for writing the truth.

That’s a lie. I linked to what I previously wrote about it in both of those articles. Retract your lie.

Listen, he is minimizing the churches role in the child rapes. It is the rapist priests fault, but in his words it has to do with some outside influence.

“Again, it goes back to this moral relativism, which is very accepting of a variety of different lifestyles. And if you make the case that if you can do whatever you want to do, as long as it’s in the privacy of your own home, this
right to privacy,”

On another occasion, an even more sickening example of his minimizing the churches role in the rapes that took place in Boston, he blamed the fact that Boston was
the seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism…..

“When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While there’s no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political
and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

These are not statements of someone holding the church and its leadership accountable; they are the words of someone making excuses for the church.  This is a man that goes apoplectic over contraceptives, but has a very nuanced view of child rape within the church. 

If the most he can muster is “there is a problem in the church” over child rape, he is a coward.

No John, it is the culture of the church, not the outside world.  Why can’t you see that this is not an outside problem but one that the church has enabled?  It is not like this has just started to happen, it has been established that  priests have been raping children since the 50s, (that is what is on the record by it but is has been going on much longer).  Was society at large at fault during those times also?  And saying there is a problem in the church on child rape is about as weak a statement as one can say.  

Who was it that called the problem an “American media made problem.”  I will save you the time of looking it up, it was the current Pope.  I don’t remember the media being being accused of raping a child, but I’m not the Pope and don’t have a pipeline to god.

Clovis4, you make some good points, I really do see your point.  However, it needs to be noted that his frame of reference is, most likely, The Bible here.  I don’t know if you are a follower of Jesus Christ, or not, but what he is saying is directly out of The Bible.  It talks a lot about how acceptance of immoral behavior is like a virus and spreads into other things.  Something that is extremely relevant to this discussion is that God doesn’t condone “religions.”  Nowhere in the Bible does God choose a “religion.”  This is a man-made thing.  And, it tells that men will form religions that seem true to The Word, but they are not.  However, personal responsibilty is a key element in God’s word.  That is another discussion, but regarding this one, these priests are just men, nothing more.  They are as likely to do something like this as anyone because they are just men.  The Bible also talks about how you should not put your trust/faith in men–this is a prime example.  Again, though, when your frame of reference is The Bible, it specifically warns of behaviors that are unholy being like a virus and spreading into other things.  Notice in my earlier post that I said it could seem like a stretch to go from homosexual behavior in your home, to priests raping children (of any age).  He may have been trying to explain something that is just realy hard to articulate in a political environment.   

He was not. He was deflecting blame from the culture of the church to outside influences. The church has known this has been going on for decades yet did nothing to
protect the children. If they acted in a manner of true concern for the children thousands of children would have been spared the horror of rape, but they didn’t and blaming anyone else for their abhorrent behavior is cowardly and why they are still obstructing the investigations.

Take a minute to look up the churches activities the past few decades and tell me this has anything to do with outside pressures on the church and you will understand just how despicable they have been and still are with regards to abandoning these children to monsters.

Okay birther, no problem with the church here and how Rick is deflecting the blame. Now you can go back to looking for Obama’s origin of birth.

Clovis4, I’d like to add that The Bible says that (I’m paraphrasing here) things that are deviant/wrong will become “normal” and “O.K.”  to do because of man’s nature.  This speaks, in a way, to a  catalyst that Rick Santorum is referring to.  Again, I am speaking from a frame of reference of The Bible, and I know that I will get clobbered on this post for some of my comments, but The Bible says that will happen as well.  By the way, for all of you will read this and think that I’m supposed to be “perfect” and act like a good boy for God and that I’m hypocritcal because I may be antagonizing some of you–if you would read The Bible, it specifically says that no one will be perfect and none of us are any better than anyone else.  It’s not about being ”perfect” and not making mistakes.   

So the current culture (if you claim that argument) has been around since at least the 50s where there is documentation of child rapes? How does that make your case?

A problem within the church, and then go on to make excuses for them.  Wow, what a brave stand.  I have a problem with the Jets not making the playoffs, I want people in jail for the rape and torture of children.  Has Rick called for any bishop to be held accountable? 

That is the problem, this is not a political issue, and he is making it out to be with some halfass attack on the culture.  This is a case of rape and the leadership of the church covering it up, even to this day. 

“That is the problem, this is not a political issue, and he is making it out to
be with some halfass attack on the culture. This is a case of rape and the
leadership of the church covering it up, even to this day.”  (by Clovis4)

Clovis4, I totally agree that the church is trying to cover it up, and it makes me very angry.  The reason that I went into all that in my previous message was to say that a “church” can be no different than any other organization, IF their hearts are not where they need to be.  Actually, if you believe The Bible’s words, those priests doing it (rape) while acting as a ”reprentative” of God is a HUGE sin againt The Lord, and will be held accountable for those actions.  Personally, I don’t agree with the notion that one person can confess their sins to another man, and that this is adequate for salvation.  That places those priests in a postion that is a dangerous one, in my opinion.  That power is not given by The Lord–it is given by men, and The Lord says that there is only one way to heaven, and that ain’t it.  Now, I’m sure that I will offend some Catholics with my opinions here, but I can point to specific Bible verses that back up my claims.    

 Where does he say “its no different” then sex between adults?

The premise is that he does not blame anyone, here.
Yet, in the very first sentence, he says that the church HAS A PROBLEM.
How does that sound like he’s excusing someone?

You literally have to skip over the very first sentence to come to the conclusion that he hasn’t blamed anyone.

I’m no birther and you can’t read. http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

 It isn’t my case. I merely understand the argument. Of course, I’m not determined to misconstrue it, so that might be why.

 He called priests molesting post-pubescent boys “a basic homosexual relationship.”  He didn’t call it rape, he called it a relationship.

You cannot explain that away.  The context is there for all to see.

I read them. Your problem is not with the rapes, it’s with Breitbart. Your concern is not for the women involved, it’s for Occupy’s reputation.

You want this retracted? Delete this idiotic pile of shit article.

 If Santorum hadn’t started out by saying that the church has a problem, you’d have a point.

You’ll note that the article references:
“…there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they’d
pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming,
according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church
scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?”

Here is that article:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Here is the first SENTENCE in THAT article:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

USA Today, while knowing about that article, cast these statements in a vacuum.

Do you still feel that he’s an apologist?
A simple “no” will do.

I could care less about Tommy’s junk, which is why I wasn’t asking about it. But you were.

 Clovis,
If the ONLY thing Santorum had said was that the church had a problem, you’d have HALF a point.  But that isn’t all Santorum said.

You’ll note that the article references:

“…there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they’d
pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming,
according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church
scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?”

Here is that article:

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Here is the first SENTENCE in THAT article:

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

Do you still feel that he’s an apologist?

A simple “no” will do.

 They’re making stuff up by SELECTIVELY quoting parts of the AP interview, and leaving out where he said “I think the church has a problem” in response to them referencing his earlier article where he started by saying that:

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

Do you still feel that he’s an apologist for the church, when he said that 6 months earlier?

A simple “no” will do.

Barack Hussein Obama:
“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our
homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other
countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,”

Counselor, you consistently prove yourself a fool for the state don’t you?

Notice the second name from last. Does it ring a bell?

Some governments around the world have passed measures to phase out incandescent light bulbs
for general lighting. The aim is to encourage the use and technological
development of more energy-efficient lighting alternatives, such as compact fluorescent lamp (CFLs) and LED lamps. Brazil and Venezuela started to phase them out in 2005,[1] and the European Union, Switzerland,[2] and Australia[3] started to phase them out in 2009.[4] Likewise, other nations are planning scheduled phase-outs: Argentina,[5] Russia, and Canada in 2012,[6] and the United States and Malaysia in 2014.[7]

Hey, is there anything your nanny-state government can’t run? How about school lunches???

Thank you Michelle Obama!

A preschool student at West Hoke Elementary School in North Carolina
ended up eating three chicken nuggets for lunch two weeks ago — because
a state inspector declared that the 4-year-old’s lunch wasn’t
nutritious enough.

The turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips and apple juice, according to the Carolina Journal,
didn’t meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines. So to meet those
requirements, the child was given chicken nuggets. The agent was
inspecting the entire class’ lunch boxes that day.

The list goes on and on and on and on…

 You’re reaching a new level of jackassery when you suggest that leaving out the part where he blames the church, as you’ve done, is the same as leaving out the OTHER parts of society he ALSO blames.

Let’s try a simple logic excercise here:
Santorum blames the church.  Yes or no?

The only way you can come to the “no” conclusion is by ignoring the very first sentence, or the article that the AP references.  True?

Wait… let’s help by pointing to the article that the AP referenced:

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

Yeah.  Santorum was pretty soft on those priests  there.  Jackass.

 He’s making the slippery slope argument.  Which you might not like… but its not the same as equating the two.
And its certainly not condoning child rape.

 You’re not looking at the timeline.  At all.

AP wrote:
“…there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they’d
pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming,
according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church
scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?”

Here is that article:

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Santorum writes, in the very first part of THAT article:

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

Now you’ve said:
“He is basically saying that the Church and the priests involved are not
really responsible for what went on and the subsequent cover-up.”

In order for you to come to that conclusion, you had to ignore what Santorum wrote (and was referenced to) 6 months earlier, AND that Santorum started bout by saying that the “church has a problem.”

I wouldn’t consider the word “revulsion” to be sympathetic to the church.

 Dude, you need to read.

You’ll note that the article references:
“…there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they’d  pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming,  according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?”

Here is that article:
http://www.catholic.org/featur...

Here is the first SENTENCE in THAT article:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical  leadership”

USA Today, while knowing about that article, cast these statements in a vacuum.

Do you still feel that he’s excusing child rape when he siad that he had revulsion over the priests who prey on minors?
A simple “no” will do.

Tommy Christopher has gone way off the reservation with this one.  Rein it in Tom, you’re sounding a little kooky.

 He DID already condemn it.

http://www.catholic.org/featur...

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

USA Today was asking him about that article.

Now is it fair to say that he was condoning child rape???

Frankly, I think Santorum is an ass.  But don’t think “look over there” lessens Olbermann’s lies or your stupid and silly attempts to defend them, Tommy.

 ”A problem within the church, and then go on to make excuses for them.  Wow, what a brave stand.”

Clovis,
You’re reading into what Santorum said, but ironically not reading what the question was, and what it referred to.
The USA Today article references:
“…there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they’d
pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming,
according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church
scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?”

Here is that article:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Santorum wrote:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

He wrote that in a catholic magazine.
Now how much more direct do you want him to get, then talking about “revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical

leadership” in a catholic magazine?

I’m with you ostracario!

Went to parochial school, taught by the Sisters of Charity, they were rarely charitable..
.
‘Religion’ in the wrong hands is as harmful as a deadly weapon!

Tommy, your over the top writing makes people vomit.

Yes, they were all Homosexual Pedophiles.  No matter the age, if they were under legal age….

The “original” source?  Pablo, the outrage is on his verbatim response to the questions above. Since you have a problem defending Santorum when he claims the child molestations carried out by Priests are “a basic homosexual relationship” you try to deflect attention away by citing what he said somewhere else?  Pathetic.

 You only have to read his verbatim response above which sums it up – that he believes the Priest molestations of children are just “a basic homosexual relationship.”

Santorum is best washed away at the earliest opportunity . . .

He doesn’t need to spin anything – Santorum puts his beliefs out there very plainly…”basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.”

So, the crime of Priests molesting children were just “a basic homosexual relationship.”? 

That comment sums up the whole priest scandal, and the culture of cover-up in the Catholic Church.

 Why don’t you try to change the subject?  LOL

 Santorum thinks raping children is simply “a basic homosexual relationship.” and you’re calling Tommy out?  Where are your priorities?

I guess your focus is the same as the Catholic Church – deny, cover up, deflect, defend.  Really honorable traits.

 In the interview above Santorum dismisses rape since they are post-pubescent and calling it simply a homosexual experience:

“basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with
post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or
5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.”

 You forgot: “basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.”

Yeah – child rape is just a homosexual relationship. 

 Santorum says above that the rape of children is simply a “homosexual relationship” – LOL.  He makes it sound downright fun! Hahahaha – creep.

 Calling “rape” a “relationship” is certainly not giving it the serious attention it needs.  Instead of trying to minimize the problem and deflect rape as a simply “homosexual relationship” he should call it what it is…RAPE.

Do you disagree?  Was it rape? (we all know the answer is yes, so I’ll save you the trouble).  So then why does he try to minimize it by calling it a “relationship”?

 He is overlooking it by labeling it as a “homosexual relationship” – isn’t that the most ridiculous thing ever?

Tell me genius – if your wife, girlfriend, aunt, sister or any female you are close to was raped by a guy last night, would you say “I heard you had a bad heterosexual relationship last night?”

The church needs to own this and not try to minimize it…the terrible way they’ve handled this thing is why everyone is dubious of their claims to clean up.

 You’re defending the indefensible.  Calling rape a “relationship” implies there is something consensual and meaningful between both parties.  And that is not the case, correct?

The answer you’re fumbling around for is “yes” – stop trying to gloss this over.  The church has been doing that for years and you see where that got us.

He’s excusing the priests by calling the rapes they carried out a “relationship” with the victims. 

So dumb it makes you wonder if the priests would note in their Facebook status after raping some poor boy that he was “In A Relationship” LOL.

Three statements in a vacuum?  Are you one of the Priests who are trying to cover this whole thing up?  You’re in complete denial, and you must not have read the whole interview. 

There’s no Breitbart cut/paste to this interview…his answer was his answer…child rape is nothing more than a “homosexual relationship”

 Santorum condones childhood rape as simply a “homosexual relationship” – and its especially OK because “We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship”

Santorum’s words VERBATIM, in CONTEXT.  Read them above for yourself.  Stop trying to minimize this ChiJohn, you’re on the wrong side of morality here.

I know, right?  ChicagoJohn just keeps posting and posting over and over the same reference to something that’s doesn’t even speak to Santorum’s comments above.  It’s like he works for Santorum, or the Church, or both.

Here’s what he said -  “We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.”

Anyone with a soul would be creeped out by that.  He sounds like a Priest.

“We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.”

So now the rapes these priests carried out are just “relationships” – I’m sure everyone out in the real world who has been raped or knows someone who has been raped will appreciate such a minimization of their experiences.

Being raped, is not the same thing as being in a relationship…true story bro.

 Hahaha – you’re piecing together two comments made on two separate occasions…and everyone else has the problem? 

I think you have the problem if you think being raped is the same as being in a relationship.

Santorum has a really bad record as
an economic conservative. He has supported ear marks on a number of occasions.
He also has a terrible record on trade. He has supported a number of tariffs
that would raise cost on consumers. He sponsored a bill that would raise
tariffs and then given those tariff revenues to a special interest group. It is also interesting that he seems to be overlooking that part of consenting relationship is that both parties are adults, not just post-pubescent.

http://www.examiner.com/bloomington-economic-policy-in-springfield/why-rick-santorum-worries-me-on-trade

 Wow – someone is not playing nice Pablo.  Why don’t you go read an article somewhere else if you don’t like the articles here.  I like the articles, and I like the debate – but I don’t like your foul mouth.

 Santorum says it above – he thinks being raped is the same thing as being in a relationship.  Does that sound right?  Of course not – sounds like someone trying to minimize this whole scandal.

He says it is a “relationship” – which by definition is “a romantic or passionate attachment”

Do you think rape is “a romantic or passionate attachment”?

Why don’t you post something that is related to this story Danny.  And make sure you know what you’re talking about too – that whole story about the lunch in NC was already debunked.

You all should be ashamed of yourself for not standing up for people who have been raped.  Being raped is not being in a “relationship.”  I think we can be clear on that.  If you think otherwise, tell us what a wonderful relationship RAPE is…

 You don’t like Mediaite – why are you even here?  All you do is complain about every single story…no one can take you seriously.

 But you do like people who think rape is a happy, fun relationship, right Tina?  Wouldn’t that be a nice “relationship” to have someone hold you down and violate you against your will?

Yeah – that’s Santorum.

 Pablo, did you read the article.  You really should…it will catch you up to speed.

 What, you want Tommy to change Santorums verbatim responses?  Can’t do that fella.  Santorum owns his comments.

Leave it to the Church to rape countless children and then have a conservative politician come along and minimize it by calling the rapes ‘relationships’ – “a romantic or passionate attachment” according to Merriam-Webster.

Santorum’s own words:  “We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.”

Makes it sound like the Priests bought the children they raped dinner and roses.

Um, keep reading.

You literally have to skip every other sentence after that in order to think he not; I’m keeping this all under 1 sentence because that appears to be all you’re capable of reading.

You literally have to skip every other sentence after that in order to think he not; I’m keeping this all under 1 sentence because that appears to be all you’re capable of reading.

He doesn’t. He says child rape a consensual homosexual relationship.

Santorum – The guy’s a fncking lunatic, the “Christian” Bin Laden. But let’s not pretend that Obama (or anyone else) is any better. Remember the #NDAA – You’re all going to get screwed by someone, what does it matter what colour skin or religious beliefs he has?

There is one potential POTUS for 2012 that will make a difference to the nonsense that happens on a daily basis in Washington.  One of them has an education beyond what it takes to make money, repeat sound-bites, and get elected.  But you deserve everything you’re going to get because you keep falling for the bullshit.

Time to wise the fnck up America.

This whole post is turning into a Santorum…did I use that term correctly?  LOL

 Amazing.
You ignore that Santorum said that the church has a problem.
You ignore that in the article that USA Today references:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

Only a pathological liar can get Santorum dismissing rape out of that.

 So… he never said that its ‘no different’ then sex between adults?
Yeah.  That’s what I figured.

Sisyphus, explain this statement of Santorums’ again:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

And how that equals him dismissing victims?

 How is repeating the words that USA Today/AP was ASKING HIM ABOUT, not referencing what he was talking about?

AP:
“AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington
Post about six months ago, they’d pulled something off the Web, some
article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post,
blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you
explain that? ”

The article that AP was talking about:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

The very first sentence of what Santorum said in that article… in a CATHOLIC CHURCH MAGAZINE:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

I’m not a fan of Santorum, nor am I catholic.
I’m defending someone you apparently never met.
Its called “the Truth”.

 AP asked:
“…there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they’d pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?”

Here is that article:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Here is the first SENTENCE in THAT article:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

Watch as Sisyphus completely ignores this.

Wow – someone is not playing nice Pablo.  Why don’t you go read an article somewhere else if you don’t like the articles here.  I like the articles, and I like the debate – but I don’t like your foul mouth.

Take your lazy behind and go find the transcript you contemptible POS.

Very well said, Pablo.

 Sisyphus, you have to take the phrases out of context to interpret it your way.

“You’re defending the indefensible.  Calling rape a “relationship”
implies there is something consensual and meaningful between both
parties.”

This is what Santorum said, that you are cherry picking the phrases out of:
“AP: What’s the alternative?

SANTORUM: In this case, what we’re talking
about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with
post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or
5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic homosexual relationship.
Which, again, according to the world view sense is a a perfectly fine
relationship as long as it’s consensual between people.”

Note where Santorum says the phrase ‘as long as its consensual’.
Now why did you leave that out??

 Your “pathetic sheep” comment was not properly transmitted here. I get the message, but let’s look at one example. Forbidding smoking in restaurants is in accordance with the consenting rule. If even one person objects to the smell and danger of smoking in a room, then all others must comply.
Smoking is dangerous, costly to society, and I really should quit some day.

ChicagoJohn, you won’t be making any progress while trying to talk sense with MrPorkChop.  It’s truly impossible. 

 You’re an idiot.
And if you took my words out of context as much as you take Santorum’s words out of context, I’d point out that you were lying about me, too.

Santorum ALREADY SAID he had profound sympathy for the victims, and REVULSION over the priests involved:

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

That’s the article, in a Catholic magazine, that Santorum was being asked about.
To describe his reaction to the scandals as anything but “revulsion” is more then disingenuous.  Its straight out lying.

Congratulations, you’ve posted a truly stupid message.  Why don’t you step aside and let the adults keep talking.

Well said.

If you don’t like smoking in my restraunt, stay the f out of it. Wow, what a concept. Here is another: there is not ONE CASE not a single solitary case or proof that second hand smoke has killed ANYONE. EVER.

 Sisyphus,

You’ve gone from being bizarre to an asshat.
You’re literally pulling parts of sentences out of paragraphs to suggest that Santorum was okay with this, when the very question he was being asked was about his previous essay in a catholic magazine calling the priests involved “repulsive.”

Unlike you, I provide the entire statement:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

That’s what he was being asked about.
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

You’ve now gone full-strawman and said that “his answer was his answer…child rape is nothing more than a “homosexual relationship.”

Which as you know, he never, ever said.  Moreover, when he wrote that he church has a problem… he wasn’t saying that the church’s problem was “all of those gays.”

Get the chip off of your shoulder long enough to see straight.

Congratulations, you’ve posted a truly stupid message.  Why don’t you step aside and let the adults keep talking.

 At no point did he excuse what a priest did.
I’m going to continue to link to this article that he was being asked about, until you respond:
Here is that article:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Here is the first SENTENCE in THAT article:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

If that’s defending the priests… then you’re even more goofy then I thought.

 Sisyphus,
I’m on the right side of HONESTY here.
You can’t create a strawman out of pulling a phrase out of a paragraph and building your own personal “HE CONDONES RAPE!” out of it.

Once again, he was being asked about his previous essay in a catholic mag.
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

How is he condoning rape?
Or did he have to repeat that exact sentence in the interview to make it clear enough for you to grasp?

 You’re leaving out this Santorum, the part that he was being interviewed about:
Here is that article:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Here is the first SENTENCE in THAT article:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

I’m going to keep asking you how that equals him condoning rape until you answer.

 Tommy,
You need to retract what you wrote.
You said that Santorum was condoning rape, when clearly you knew about his previous article in the catholic mag:
Here is that article:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Here is the first SENTENCE in THAT article:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

Explain yourself.

 Sisyphus,
Read the article that AP asked him about.
Go ahead.  It will get you up to speed:
Here is that article:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Here is the first SENTENCE in THAT article:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

 Sisyphus, go back.
What was the question that Santorum was being asked.
I’ll wait here.

 In response to which question, Sisyphus.

You have reading comprehension problems.

In the meantime, I’ll link you to the source of all of this… why AP was asking him about it:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Here is the first SENTENCE in THAT article:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

Man.. that guy just doesn’t like catholics.  Oh.  Huh.
Hrrrm.
It kinda sounds like he DIRECTLY says that he has “sympathy for victims” and “revulsion over priests who prey on minors”

You gotta watch out for people who… uh… think like that?

 ”Hahaha – you’re piecing together two comments made on two separate occasions…and everyone else has the problem? ”

You’re being just slightly retarded now.
What was Santorum asked?
“Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post
about six months ago, they’d pulled something off the Web, some article
that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in
part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that? ”

Now I’m going to help you out, since you seem to be taking the short bus.
AP wanted Santorum to comment on the essay he wrote in a catholic magazine.  In that catholic magazine, Santorum made the radical statements:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

He’s:
1) Shown sympathy for the victims
2) Said that the priests “who prey on minors”  cause him “revulsion”
and
3) spoke of frustration with the leadership in the catholic church

And he did this ALL within a catholic magazine… in the very first paragraph.
AP was ASKING HIM about those statements.
That’s what makes it relevant.
Its not ‘two separate’ statements, but the statement that he was being asked about.

Given that he said all of the above, you have to stretch pretty far to accuse him of not taking the church to task.

 He wasn’t calling rape a relationship.
Sisyphus, you need to go back and ask him what he was being asked.
Go ahead.
And get some reading comprehension while you’re at it.

Secondly, do you think he wrote this NOT thinking it was rape?
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

Go back and see what he was being asked about, in reply to your cherry picking.

Then go to the original question:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Here is the first SENTENCE in THAT article:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

Do you think that Santorum was excusing rape when he said:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

Context.
It will make you a better reader.

Oh, but Tommy has investigated the rapes.  He talked to Ms. Down Twinkles who told him it wasn’t really a problem.  And he dutifully reported that.  They have “de-escalation” teams, you see “who look to defuse any type of aggression before it gets started.”  Those crimes which have occurred at Occupy must have been outside the long arm of the “de-escalation teams.”  So you can’t really blame the movement for what happens in their company.

For some reason, though, Mr. Christopher was interested in framing his story in terms of comparisons with the Tea party.  Now what need a Tea Party would have to invent “De-escalation Teams” or “safe woman spaces” is beyond anyone’s imagination; seeing as the common decency of the people attending Tea Party events meant that nobody had to even think about it.

 In now place does Santorum say that being raped is the same thing as being in a relationship.
You’re being an asshat.

What Santorum DID say, in a catholic magazine no less (and what AP was originally asking him about):
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

I’ll note how many of you are responding to that… where Santorum took the Catholic church to task in their very own mag.

Yes, Santorum owns his own comments.
Ones that you will not respond to:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

Yet, that’s what he was being asked about.  His comments in a catholic magazine, where he takes the church to task.

 Yeah.  He covered it up by bringing it up in a catholic magazine… and blaming both the priests and the hierarchy for the problem:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in

the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests

who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical

leadership”

Then AP asks him about his earlier statements, and you suggest that its proof that he was covering for the church?
Yeah.  Sure.  Right.
If that’s cover for the church, I’m glad that I’m not being given that kind of cover for my agnosticism.

Keep reading.
AP was asking Santorum about this article that he wrote in a catholic magazine:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

This is where he discussed “how” the church was the problem.  In an article in a catholic magazine that he wrote:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

Now you may wonder how I found this?
This is the essay that AP is asking him about in THIS article.  I worked backwards.
Now you tell me:  Are all of the people who are taking Santorum to task for not attacking the church being honest, here?

 Sisyphus wrote:
“The “original” source?  Pablo, the outrage is on his verbatim response to the questions above.”

Well, no.  You’ve created strawmen out of the words, above… while ignoring what he was being asked about.
Now you’re ignoring NOT ONLY that he said that the church has a problem, but that he also said:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

… in a catholic magazine.
And then telling us that he isn’t blaming the church.

 Then ’tis the stink that offends others.
If you can’t spend whatever time it takes to eat a meal without smoking, you have an addiction. If you don’t have that addiction, then think of it as a common courtesy to those who don’t want the stink of smoke around them.

I was taught by Note Dame nuns and then Daughters of Charity. I have to give them the credit for making me think, and I saw through their pack of shit. 

I don’t like you much either, Sisy. GFY.

I’ll give Tommy the benefit of my belief that he didn’t spend a millisecond considering trying to find any context.

 Wow Chi-guy, way to not pay attention.  Rape is not a relationship…that is all.  you cannot deny it with an inappropriate, unrelated reference to another quote about how sorry he is…ayeyaeyae, you really believe what you’re saying, don’t you?

Rape is not a relationship. 

To summarize – there’s a problem with the church, their priests like to get into “homosexual relationships” with underage, post-pubescent boys – which definitely is not rape he’s saying.  Bet people who have been raped, and the courts, would disagree.

I didn’t say he’s right. I said that that was the context of the quotes. I don’t like Santorum, but in no way, shape, or form, does he condone child-rape. He condemns it, just as he condemns homosexuality. He equates the belief that consensual male-male sex is okay with the belief that “consensual” man-child sex is okay. Like I said, I don’t agree with him. BUT THAT’S WHAT HE SAID.

This article is stupid, and Tommy Christopher and all of his minions in the comments lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Santorum characterizes rape as a “homosexual relationship” – you don’t even dispute that fact. 

“In this case, what we’re talking about, basically, is priests who were having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a basic
homosexual relationship. Which, again, according to the world view sense is a perfectly fine relationship as long as it’s consensual between people. If you view the world that way, and you say that’s fine, you would assume that you would see more of it.”

Rick is saying once a boy hits puberty they are not actually raped but engaging in a “basic homosexual relationship.”  His words.

 Yeah, I know.  But it always humors me to watch the left backpedal.  Or worse yet, claim that everything that they think they read is still true, despite everything that disagrees with it.

Its entertaining.

“which definitely is not rape he’s saying. ”

Would you care to quote for us where he said its not rape?
* hands on chin*
* still waiting…*
* still waiting…*

 Yep, that’s pretty much a given.

Otherwise, Tommy would have to find out what it was that AP was talking about, and he’d find the article in the Catholic magazine, where Santorum said:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

Revulsion for the priests who prey on minors doesn’t exactly sound like approval to me.

 Maybe Santorum should have stood up for them?
Oh wait.. he did:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership. ”
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Its funny how all you have to do is ask what the AP writer was asking Santorum about, trace back, and find where he said that he had “profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership. ”

Blind, thou is.

 Sounds like your problem is with Santorum, and his misunderstanding of what rape is…it is not a “relationship” right?  Maybe someone should educate Santorum about that.   Why don’t you help him with that Chi-guy…lol.

 Oh – I see – Chi-guy keeps referencing the wrong quote.  you should read the transcript above Chi-guy…it will get you up to speed.

 When you say that I “keep referencing the wrong quote”, you mean the article that Santorum was being asked about?
When AP asked him:
“Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about
six months ago, they’d pulled something off the Web, some article that
you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the
Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?”

And where Santorum said that he had revulsion over priests who prey on minors?
That quote?
The one you want to ignore?

You’re trying to redirect attention to a more favorable quote, as opposed to the vile remarks above.  In what world is rape a “relationship”?

Ok then – that means that if a man (18 or older) engaged in a sexual relationship with a 12, 13 or 14
year old Chi-guy – that would be a basic heterosexual
“relationship”? Do you know about statutory rape laws, and why they
exist?

 He excused it when he called rape a “relationship”

Anyone else not really surprised that a guy who’s written numerous articles trying to smear conservatives as racists through the convenient framing device of “dog-whistling” and code language is himself a shameless anti-Catholic bigot? Makes me wonder if the devout Ed Morrissey knows how much Tommy loathes him. I wouldn’t be surprised if Tommy put his life savings in condom stocks given the manifest hatred he exhibits toward Catholics.

 Hahaha – Chi guy thinks they were asking about the following quote (your words Chi-guy):

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals
in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

When they were NOT in fact asking about that quote above (very well played Chi-guy, you should improve your “reading comprehension” *wink*).  They were asking about his “blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism.”

Now, my comprehension challenged friend, that means they were actually asking about the following comments from Santorum in his article on Catholic.org:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.
”

See?  That is what they were asking about…not the quote you keep posting over and over again, like you’re a dog with a bone.

Stop trying to dupe everyone here with that paragraph…that’s not the topic of this story.

It’s lying and being disingenuous to say they were asking about the quote you post, instead of the following (the actual text they were interested in):

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

Which gave rise to the Washington Post article, and the following USA Today interview…stop lying and posting the same unrelated quote over and over and over and….

Same wrong quote…try again.  Why are you trying to mislead everyone?

 ”There you go again” Reagan would say – posting the wrong, unrelated quote.  For shame.

 I know you’re confused – here’s what they were asking about (you accidentally keep posting the wrong quote):

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

That’s what led to the WaPo article, and the follow-up USA Today interview..you’re welcome.

 Wrong again fella – they were asking about this comment:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.
”

Better luck next time.

 Gotta watch out for people who blame liberalism for Priests raping helpless little boys:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

Stop cherry picking weasel.  This story is about how he is deflecting blame for some organized rapists called Priests.

 Having problems finding your big-boy words Pablo? lol.

 Why should he explain himself for an irrelevant quote?  The whole article is about the excuses for the rapes Santorum made up:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

yeah – the Priests raped kids because of “cultural liberalism”…LMFAO…that’s what this article is about – not the contrived empathy you’ve posted all over this post.

 Now place?  you seem a little flustered – desperate even – pasting the same irrelevant quote over and over again.  Why don’t you just be honest – the story above is about Santorum blaming the rapes on liberalism, and this is the relevant quote:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

You really need to read these things genius.

You know Norbit, I think you’re on to something.  No.  On second though, it couldn’t be.  Tommy wouldn’t be trying to inflame something within the GOP by this article in order to skew the race, now, would he?

 Back here again peddling the same irrelevant quote..why don’t you be honest with everyone here and post what the story above is really about? 

Oh yeah – you didn’t read past the first paragraph, so you don’t know.  you should really read the whole thing genius.

I’ll keep asking you what an irrelevant quote has to do with this article…that quote is NOT what he is being asked about…why are you trying to mislead people?

 You need to read more than the first paragraph…seriously.  Read the whole thing.  Especially the part in question where he blames liberalism for the molesters they have called priests:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.
“

 That’s not what he was asked, despite all the times you post and report again and again – it does not make it true.  He was asked about the following excuse he makes for the priests raping little boys:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

You should read more than the first paragraph…you’re desperately unaware of what’s going on here.

 As expected, Sisyphus will not either:
1) note what the question was, that Santorum was responding to
or
2) note the previous essay, in which Santorum says that he had “revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

” Ok then – that means that if a man (18 or older) engaged in a sexual relationship with a 12, 13 or 14
year old Chi-guy – that would be a basic heterosexual
“relationship”? Do you know about statutory rape laws, and why they exist?”

At what point did Santorum say that a sexual relationship with a 12, 13, or 14 yo was right???
You have to keep on inventing things that Santorum did NOT say.  You’re like a strawman machine.

“It’s lying and being disingenuous to say they were asking about the
quote you post, instead of the following (the actual text they were
interested in):”

Now you’re reaching a whole new level of strawman!
First off, I didn’t say that they were asking about the QUOTE.
So, right there… you’re entire post is shot.
Beyond that,  I wrote:
“That’s the article, in a Catholic magazine, that Santorum was being asked about.”

Now you’re suggesting that they were referring SPECIFICALLY to a quote that they never quoted!
“Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about
six months ago, they’d pulled something off the Web, some article that
you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the
Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?”

Which makes you more of an asshat.
And dishonest.

 You keep saying that he’s called child rape a relationship.
Yet, you won’t refer to the question that he was asked.

Try again.
Eventually, you’ll get it right.

 ”Hahaha – Chi guy thinks they were asking about the following quote (your words Chi-guy):”

Once again, you’re writing things that were never said.
Where did I say that they were asking about the quote?

Now what I DID suggest is that you should read the essay that Santorum wrote, in which he says:
“”Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals
in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”"

…and then tell me how you think it is that Santorum has ‘never’ held the church responsible.  Or the priests.  Or how he approves of child rape.
When he wrote that in a catholic magazine.

I’m still waiting for you to explain your logic to me.

I’m trying to mislead everyone… by quoting what Santorum actually WROTE to the catholic church, in an essay referred to by the AP when asking Santorum about his statements?

When you, instead, say that Santorum is endorsing priests having sex with 12, 13, and 14 year olds… when you can’t find one sentence anywhere  that says that.
In the meantime, you DO have Santorum saying in an article to the Catholic church (in their magazine) that what the priests who were involved in the sex scandal did was repulsive.
Now how in that tiny little head of yours does that equal approval, or not calling the church out?

 And its unrelated, in your dust-filled head, to link to the actual article that the AP asked him about, and quote where Santorum specifically called the church out, “…with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on
minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

You consider that unrelated when you keep telling us that Santorum approves of child rape.

The funny thing about your arguments is that anything that destroys the crap out of them?  You find them to be ‘unrelated’.

 Wrong again fella – they were asking about this comment:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

Funny… they never quoted that comment.
You keep reading into things that people DON’T say, while ignoring the shit that they DO say.
How do you live your life that way?

Let’s do a “thinking” excercise.
Did Santorum say that he had profound sympathy for the victims of the sex scandal?
Did Santorum say that he had revulsion for priests that preyed on minors?
Did Santorum call out the church for the “the absence of hierarchical leadership”?
Yes?
No?

Right.  We’re the one’s cherry picking…. whereas you are counting in everything Santorum has said.
Did Santorum say that he had profound sympathy for the victims of the sex scandal?

Did Santorum say that he had revulsion for priests that preyed on minors?

Did Santorum call out the church for the “the absence of hierarchical leadership”?

Yes?

No?

Answer the question, Claire.

Did Santorum say that he had profound sympathy for the victims of the sex scandal?

Did Santorum say that he had revulsion for priests that preyed on minors?

Did Santorum call out the church for the “the absence of hierarchical leadership”?

Yes?

No?

Its funny… because you can read a ton of crap into what Santorum never said…. yet, you can’t seem to read anything into what he actually wrote:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

The very first sentence of his essay.
Does it sound to you like he approves of child rape?
Yes?  No?

 Oh brother.  I’m the guy who’s desperate, even though you can’t answer why Santorum “approves” of child rape, when he wrote:

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

The very first sentence of his essay.

Does it sound to you like he approves of child rape?

Yes?  No?

 I’m going to keep posting the quote until you take back the part where you say that Santorum approves of child rape by priests.

You’re being a complete stubborn, obstinate idiot.
You *could* admit that Santorum *seems* to be calling the church out in this article:

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

Does it sound to you like he approves of child rape?

Yes?  No?
Answer the question, Claire.

 You STILL need to read the first paragraph, and answer the simple question:
Did Santorum say that he had profound sympathy for the victims of the sex scandal?

Did Santorum say that he had revulsion for priests that preyed on minors?

Did Santorum call out the church for the “the absence of hierarchical leadership”?

Yes?

No?

Did Santorum say that he had profound sympathy for the victims of the sex scandal?

Did Santorum say that he had revulsion for priests that preyed on minors?
Did Santorum call out the church for the “the absence of hierarchical leadership”?
Yes?
No?

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

The very first sentence of his essay.
You said that he approves of child rape.

Does it sound to you like he approves of child rape?

Yes?  No?

 Sure.
Such a free pass, that Santorum actually called them out on their own magazine:

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

That’s the article referenced by the AP in this interview.
Does it sound like Santorum gave the catholic church “a pass”?
Or did he express frustration with the “absence of hierarchical
leadership” in their own magazine, and talk about his revulsion over the priests who prey on minors?

You keep creating strawmen for me to knock down.
I never said that Santorum was asked about the quote.
He WAS asked about the essay he wrote.

Given that he was asked about the essay, and that you suggested his answer was approval of child rape… his essay is kind of important.  Particularly the first line:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership. ”
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

Those priests should have put an aspirin between their knees.

You can’t even quote the right paragraph that is referenced:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

You just want to quote the feel-good stuff…doesn’t work that way genius.  You’re referencing the wrong paragraph – stop trying to dupe everyone.

 Don’t answer the question Claire- Ch-guy is trying to fool you (and everyone else here) by referencing Santorums fake verbal lashing of the Church…which has nothing to do with this story.  It all has to do with his blaming the Rapist Priests’ actions on “cultural liberalism” – that quote, and that quote only is why we’re having this conversation to begin with.

Then Santorum really muffs it up more by equating rape to a “relationship”…can’t decide which is worse – Santorum for saying it, or people like CHi-guy for defending it by using deceitful tactics of redirection.

 Read the article above – I’m not doing your work for you if you didn’t read the article above.  Look for the words homosexual and relationship…that should get you going genius…lol

 The whole crux of the story is that he blames liberalism for the army of rapists the Church is turning out.  Why are you trying to mislead people into thinking it’s about his contrived sympathy for the victims by cherry picking the first paragraph.  That’s all you’ll post, is the glossy, contrived compassion and not the crux of the whole story which is his deflecting the blame Catholic Rapists should shoulder onto “cultural liberalism” – here’s the quote you are intentionally leaving out:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

You should really be more principled than this Chi-guy…you certainly present yourself as some solitary truth-holder.  When you spread all these lies and misdirection it kind of dulls your super hero truth-holder status.

Just be honest.

 He goes on to point the finger at “cultural liberalism” – yeah, weasel move.  The gays force Priests to rape boys..The gays did it! LOL

I note you’re selectively not posting that quote Pablo…tisk, tisk.  Going to blow your top and curse again?  Hahaha

It’s funny – your like a guy looking for his glasses that are sitting on top of his head.  You quote that the story above is about Santorum blaming liberalism for the assembly-line type of rape carried out by Priests, however, you then post over and over the wrong quote about his fake sympathies..instead of posting the quote that started this whole story:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

The paragraph above, while couched in “While it is no excuse…” ends up pointing the finger “…it is no suprise…” at who he thinks is a good scapegoat “…cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

You can keep posting the same irrelevant quote that is unrelated to this story – but everyone knows that the quote above is what started this whole thing.

 His ‘fake’ verbal lashing of the church?

Interesting how you believe that when Santorum calls the actions of the priests who prey on minors “repulsive”, expresses “profound” sympathy for the victims, and his frustration with the “absence of hierchical leadership” is…. fake?

Sisyphus, you lost the argument.
Only you’re too dumb to realize that you lost the argument.  So you keep arguing.  And the only way that you can pretend to win the debate is by saying “Hey, just ignore what Santorum said in that article that was referenced by the AP when they asked the question…. because that REALLY DOESN’T MATTER!!!  Its FAKE!  DON’T LOOK!  PLEASE!”

Your desperation to not look like a complete fool here is palpable.

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

And you think this is “fake” verbal lashing (when he WROTE this)?

 Sooo… you can’t give us a quote where Santorum said that its not rape?  Yeah.  That’s what I thought…

 I asked:
Does it sound like Santorum gave the catholic church “a pass”?
Or did he express frustration with the “absence of hierarchical
leadership” in their own magazine, and talk about his revulsion over the priests who prey on minors?

And you couldn’t answer either.
Instead, you called it “mislead”ing people about his “contrived” sympathy for the victims.
Oh, and you forgot where he called the priests “repulsive” for “preying on minors”.

Sisyphus,
You’re literally the ONLY person who could read that section… the VERY START of his essay, and conclude that in your alternate reality land, he didn’t really mean it.
That he, in your world, doesn’t think its child rape.

Your thought process is somewhat bizarre.

OMG – you wrote it and can’t even remember – here is your quote:

“Unlike you, I provide the entire statement:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

That’s what he was being asked about.”

So…”that’s what’s being asked about”?  You “entire” quote?  It’s wrong, and it’s deceitful.  He’s being asked about his blaming liberalism for the Priest scandal.  Here’s is the ENTIRE quote (*wink*):

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

So, it’s no surprise that cultural liberalism in America is at the center of this storm?  He’s linking the two right there and that where the AP story picks up.

You really are terrible at this – or you’re very deceitful.  Which ever one you choose, posting the same unrelated quote over and over again and telling everyone “This is what the story is about” is a lie.  Hahaha – lying and coverups…you’re just like the Catholic Church!

 Its fascinating to watch you gloss over the fact that Santorum is being asked about an essay that he posted in a CATHOLIC MAGAZINE, where in the very first sentence he lashes out against the church for a lack of leadership.

You suggest that I’m like a guy who can’t find his glasses.  Dude, I’m showing you the quote where Santorum bashes the church.  Where he calls his feelings about the priests “revulsion”.  Yet, you want to create your strawman.
You’re like a guy who can’t read what was actually written, but prefers to believe in what he thinks it might mean.

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

Did Santorum call out the church in their own magazine?
Is this the article that AP was asking Santorum about?
Do you consider Santorum’s “profound sympathy for victims” to be him excusing the priests for child rape?

Selective memory much Chi-guy?

“Unlike you, I provide the entire statement:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

That’s what he was being asked about.”
LINK

Let’s break that down – “That’s what he was being asked about” – the “That’s” is a pronoun, referring to a previously mentioned noun, which looking above is “…the entire statement…” …there’s your noun being referred to.

So, simply put, you’re saying he was asked about the quote you posted (“the entire statement” hahaha).

Now you backpedal and say “First off, I didn’t say that they were asking about the QUOTE.”

Yes, you were.  Or your basic parts of speech are all jumbled.

Chi-guy, calling the Church out does not entail blaming someone else for what an army of molesters have done:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Oh – so it’s partly the fault of cultural liberalism…of course!  Haha!

Just so you know, taking responsibility does not mean blaming other people.

The quote the AP asked about was:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

You’re trying to trick people into saying the quote he was asked about was his fake outrage over the scandal:

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”

Why are you lying and trying to trick everyone here?

 And now you’re quoting ME out of context, to create a strawman of something I never said.  Here is the lead up to what you quoted:

———————————————————–
You’ve gone from being bizarre to an asshat.
You’re literally pulling
parts of sentences out of paragraphs to suggest that Santorum was okay
with this, when the very question he was being asked was about his
previous essay in a catholic magazine calling the priests involved
“repulsive.”

Unlike you, I provide the entire statement:
“Like
most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the
Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who
prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership”
————————————————————-

In order to create your strawman, in which I say that the question was about a “quote”, you have to leave out the part where I wrote:
“…when the very question he was being asked was about his
previous essay in a catholic magazine calling the priests involved
“repulsive.”"

You cannot function on this planet without quoting people out of context.

And now you’re quoting ME out of context, to create a strawman of something I never said.  Here is the lead up to what you quoted:

———————————————————–

You’ve gone from being bizarre to an asshat.
You’re literally pulling parts of sentences out of paragraphs to suggest that Santorum was okay with this, when the very question he was being asked was about his previous essay in a catholic magazine calling the priests involved “repulsive.”

Unlike you, I provide the entire statement:

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

————————————————————-

In order to create your strawman, in which I say that the question was about a “quote”, you have to leave out the part where I wrote:
“…when the very question he was being asked was about his
previous essay in a catholic magazine calling the priests involved “repulsive.”"

You cannot function on this planet without quoting people out of context.
What is this problem that you have?

“….revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

It almost sounds like he’s blaming priests there.
Doesn’t it?
Oh wait.  You won’t get that.  Because he says it, directly… instead of you being able to imply what he might have said…

Just to keep us all up to date…
The AP article refers to this story:
http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

The very first sentence of that story:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership. ”

That’s Santorum approving of child rape?  Sure.  Yeah.  Whatever.

 The AP article refers to this story:
http://www.catholic.org/featur...

The very first sentence of that story:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership. ”

That’s Santorum approving of child rape?  Sure.  Yeah.  Whatever.

Chi-guy, I know you’re having trouble here, so let me help you out…

1 – Santorum writes an article for http://www.catholic.org” in which he mentions liberalism by name… and that is to say (one of the quotes…they all blame liberalism to some degree):

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

2 – The Washington Post uses the quote above to write an article accusing Santorum of blaming the Priest scandal on “cultural liberalism”…their specific question to him was

“Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they’d pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?”

3 – These two FACTS encompass the entire substance of the article above…this is about Santorum blaming the acts of Catholic rapists on “cultural liberalism”

4 – You are posting a quote from his article that is unrelated to the substance of this article, and have said it what what the article above is about (verbatim):

“Unlike you, I provide the entire statement:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership”

That’s what he was being asked about.”

5 – We know he wasn’t asked about his fraudulent exasperation, he was asked about his tactic of putting some of the church scandal blame on “cultural liberalism”

You know this – but just like Santorum, you want to deflect attention away and deceitfully cover this up like the Catholic Church is so good at doing.  In a way, you’re the perfect spokesperson for the Catholic Church – a cunning and deceitful fraud.  And maybe worse…

 Acronyms are kid-safe caveman conservative.  But thanks for stalking me…

 LMFAO – you left off your own words at the end of your paragraph “That’s what he was being asked about.”

You really are a slithery, deceitful one aren’t you?  At least stand up like a man for your own post…I can’t say I’m surprised.

Blaming “cultural liberalism” for Catholic Priests that violate poor helpless children, is giving the Church a “pass”  – everyone can read it here and decide for themselves…go to the article and read it yourself:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

It’s “no surprise” that this happens in an area with “cultural liberalism” – lol…explain that away genius.

Rick Santorum:
“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural liberalism” is somewhat to blame.

Hahahahahaha

It’s all over here you lazy liar – do your own leg work.  Geez, you could at least read this stuff.

Lazy liar – you’re a real find aren’t you?

Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

 Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

 He’s certainly a guy who doesn’t want the Church to shoulder all of the blame:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priests do it too…Hahahahahaha  It’s part their fault.

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

And it’s from the same article he published.  Boy, sounds like he’s really giving the Church a hard time!  BWAAHHHHAHAHA

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

 He wasn’t xcusing it – he was trying to lay some of the blame on liberals. Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

 Depravity of liberalism?  Uh, OK…hahaha:

 Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

 Same interview:
“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

What?  The church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too? Hahahahahaha

Praise Jesus!

 Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

 Why not post the quote where he blames cultural liberalism for the attacks carried out by the rapist priests:
 Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

The church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too!

Amazing…Hahahahahaha

 This is where he discussed it wasn’t completely the Church’s fault -  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

 Don’t forget to blame the liberals!   Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Don’t worry, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

 Yeah, he blamed the church 100% -  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

The church is not responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too.  Silly Chi-guy.

Reading all of the story will help you avoid looking like a weasal -  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

So, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too.  Darn cultural liberals.

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

 Why are you leaving out the salient quotes?
 Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

So – he thinks the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…and Chi-guy is standing up for Santorum.  Good company to be in Chi-guy.

  Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

Anotherwords, the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…Hahahahahaha

The Priests deserve to take 100% of the blame here.  Santorum doesn’t want them to. A real stand up creep – Rick Santorum:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

What he means to say is that the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too…ayeyaeyae.

  Then Rick Santorum tries to deflect blame:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

He thinks the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too!

 Here dude – you read:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

So Ricky boy thinks the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too!

Real stand up creep.

 Santorum deflecting blame away from the Church:
“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

He thinks the church is not 100% responsible for this – “cultural
liberalism” helps these rapist priest do it too!

 It’s lying to imply he does not try to deflect blame away from the church…you should really read more than one paragrapgh of things:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.” 

blame liberalism!!!

 Yeah, more like “kinda” condemned – HE REALLY THINKS LIBERALS ARE PARTLY TO BLAME:

 
“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

His words, not mine.

 Apologist?  You don’t need to apologize if you can deflect blame onto liberals:
“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

Stay classy Santorum.  Of course it’s not ALL the priests fault. Hahaha

 Dude, its so completely obvious that you can no longer even attempt to argue that Santorum was “excusing child rape”, so now, you’re trying to shift your story.
Give it up.
You’re just flailing now.

 Sounds like Santorum thinks liberals should be blamed for Catholic Priests diddling kids:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

 Here you go Juan- Santorum feels so bad he wants to spread the blamed for this scandal to liberals…because Priests can be blamed for the whole thing:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

 This whole story is about how Santorum likes the church so much he’ll try to redirect blame around it towards liberals:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

 ”LMFAO – you left off your own words at the end of your paragraph “That’s what he was being asked about.”"

The article, dumbass.
You left out the part where I said he wwas being asked about the article:
“You’re literally pulling parts of sentences out of paragraphs to suggest that Santorum was okay with this, when the very question he was being asked was about his previous essay in a catholic magazine calling the priests involved “repulsive.”

Now in order to make it sound like I was talking about the QUOTE, you left out the section above.
If you’re going to quote people out of context, it helps to NOT HAVE THEM THERE to correct you after you do so.
Its not honest.  And then to accuse ME of being deceitful?  Wow….

Took them to task?  How can you take anyone to task when you’re busy spreading the blame to someone else:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

Wow – the liberals made the Priests rape little boys…hummm, sounds reasonable…hahahaha!

 You need to read more than the first sentence:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

There you go – fixed it for you!!!

 ”While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

You dismiss the victims when you try to blame someone else…typical creeps.

 ”While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

 You’ve officially changed your argument from ‘Santorum is excusing child rape’ to ‘just calling the priests repulsive, and blaming the church’s “absence of hierarchical leadership” while ALSO blaming liberalism, is = to giving the church a pass’

Admit that you were wrong about Santorum excusing child rape.  Do it.
Show a backbone.

 Dost thinks thou can’st read mo’er than 1 paragraph:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

Thou Ha, Thou Ha, Thou Ha.

 This equals an apologist for the Church, because, ya know the liberals made them do it:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Mooaaaahhhhh!!! Haha

 The real reason for this story:
“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Santorums attempts to shift the rape blame to liberals.  Creep.

 You missed the key part where he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Sounds like he’s really giving them 100% blame!

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a
seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at
the center of the storm.”

Whew – I thought Santorum was going to blame the Church for this rape scandal..good thing he threw in blame for them at the end.

It’s a good read Chi-guy…you should read the whole thing…I doubt it though.

 Did Santorum blame liberals?  Yes:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

 You keep ignoring how Santorum blames liberals for the Church’s outbreak of diddling priests…

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Sisyphus, its not “Anotherwords”.
Its “in other words”.  Stop doing that.  It makes you appear even more uneducated.

You’ve shifted your argument.
You are now arguing that Santorum is not holding the church “100% responsible.”

Your new tack is equally flawed.
The church is not 100% responsible. The priests are.

Now if your’e arguing that Santorum should hold the CHURCH 100% responsible (rather then the priests?) how does that make sense?

Of course, you can NOW shift your argument to say that BOTH the church and the priests are responsible.  But you can’t make them BOTH 100% responsible (unless you’re a fan of new math).  In which case, you have to divide responsibility.

To Santorum’s credit, he blamed both!  (Unlike you, who just held the church responsible.  See?  I can quote people out of context too!)
Of course, all of this completely overlooks that you can no longer say that he did not hold the priests, nor the church, responsible.

But you’ll keep overlooking it anyway.

 Sisyphus, its not “Anotherwords”.

Its “in other words”.  Stop doing that.  It makes you appear even more uneducated.

You’ve shifted your argument.

You are now arguing that Santorum is not holding the church “100% responsible.”

Your new tack is equally flawed.

The church is not 100% responsible. The priests are.

Now if your’e arguing that Santorum should hold the CHURCH 100% responsible (rather then the priests?) how does that make sense?

Of course, you can NOW shift your argument to say that BOTH the church
and the priests are responsible.  But you can’t make them BOTH 100%
responsible (unless you’re a fan of new math).  In which case, you have
to divide responsibility.

To Santorum’s credit, he blamed both!  (Unlike you, who just held the
church responsible.  See?  I can quote people out of context too!)

Of course, all of this completely overlooks that you can no longer say
that he did not hold the priests, nor the church, responsible.

But you’ll keep overlooking it anyway.

 Sisyphus, its not “Anotherwords”.

Its “in other words”.  Stop doing that.  It makes you appear even more uneducated.

You’ve shifted your argument.

You are now arguing that Santorum is not holding the church “100% responsible.”

Your new tack is equally flawed.

The church is not 100% responsible. The priests are.

Now if your’e arguing that Santorum should hold the CHURCH 100% responsible (rather then the priests?) how does that make sense?

Of course, you can NOW shift your argument to say that BOTH the church
and the priests are responsible.  But you can’t make them BOTH 100%
responsible (unless you’re a fan of new math).  In which case, you have
to divide responsibility.

To Santorum’s credit, he blamed both!  (Unlike you, who just held the
church responsible.  See?  I can quote people out of context too!)

Of course, all of this completely overlooks that you can no longer say
that he did not hold the priests, nor the church, responsible.

But you’ll keep overlooking it anyway.

I’ve still got that one too Johnny – but you seem a little tuckered out.  This Santorum guy is a bad seed, don’t you agree?  I mean, who is responsible for these Presits raping kids?  The Church right?  Nah, they don’t deserve all the blame:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.” 

 Sisyphus, its not “Anotherwords”.

Its “in other words”.  Stop doing that.  It makes you appear even more uneducated.

The first sentence, from the essay in the catholic magazine that Santorum wrote, and you quoted:
“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

You’ve shifted your argument.

You are now arguing that Santorum is not holding the church “100% responsible.”

Your new tack is equally flawed.

The church is not 100% responsible. The priests are.

Now if your’e arguing that Santorum should hold the CHURCH 100% responsible (rather then the priests?) how does that make sense?

Of course, you can NOW shift your argument to say that BOTH the church
and the priests are responsible.  But you can’t make them BOTH 100%
responsible (unless you’re a fan of new math).  In which case, you have
to divide responsibility.

To Santorum’s credit, he blamed both!  (Unlike you, who just held the
church responsible.  See?  I can quote people out of context too!)

Of course, all of this completely overlooks that you can no longer say
that he did not hold the priests, nor the church, responsible.

But you’ll keep overlooking it anyway.

The first sentence, from the essay in the catholic magazine that Santorum wrote, and you quoted:

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

 Sisyphus, its not “Anotherwords”.

Its “in other words”.  Stop doing that.  It makes you appear even more uneducated.

The first sentence, from the essay in the catholic magazine that Santorum wrote, and you quoted:

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

You’ve shifted your argument.

You are now arguing that Santorum is not holding the church “100% responsible.”

Your new tack is equally flawed.

The church is not 100% responsible. The priests are.

Now if your’e arguing that Santorum should hold the CHURCH 100% responsible (rather then the priests?) how does that make sense?

Of course, you can NOW shift your argument to say that BOTH the church
and the priests are responsible.  But you can’t make them BOTH 100%
responsible (unless you’re a fan of new math).  In which case, you have
to divide responsibility.

To Santorum’s credit, he blamed both!  (Unlike you, who just held the
church responsible.  See?  I can quote people out of context too!)

Of course, all of this completely overlooks that you can no longer say
that he did not hold the priests, nor the church, responsible.

But you’ll keep overlooking it anyway.

You’re back-peddling now.  Stand up for your own words weasel.  You’re worse than the Church…go put a fig leaf on sinner.

 You seem to believe that if you keep changing arguments, then you’ve made a point.
Whenever someone ends a sentence with “don’t you agree?”, it means that a lazy thought just preceded it.

You are no longer arguing that Santorum endorses child rape.
Progress made.

 Answering any question will help you avoid looking like a weasal.
Oh… who am I kidding?
You’re still going to look like a weasel.  You’ll never admit that Santorum condemned the priests and expressed frustration with the church IN THEIR OWN MAGAZINE.

Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Checkmate.

 Sisyphus, its not “Anotherwords”.

Its “in other words”.  Stop doing that.  It makes you appear even more uneducated.

The first sentence, from the essay in the catholic magazine that Santorum wrote, and you quoted:

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership.”

You’ve shifted your argument.

You are now arguing that Santorum is not holding the church “100% responsible.”

Your new tack is equally flawed.

The church is not 100% responsible. The priests are.

Now if your’e arguing that Santorum should hold the CHURCH 100% responsible (rather then the priests?) how does that make sense?

Of course, you can NOW shift your argument to say that BOTH the church
and the priests are responsible.  But you can’t make them BOTH 100%
responsible (unless you’re a fan of new math).  In which case, you have
to divide responsibility.

To Santorum’s credit, he blamed both!  (Unlike you, who just held the
church responsible.  See?  I can quote people out of context too!)

Of course, all of this completely overlooks that you can no longer say
that he did not hold the priests, nor the church, responsible.

But you’ll keep overlooking it anyway.

Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate. 

 Earlier, you wrote that the church should take 100% responsibility.
Now you say that the priests deserve to.

Sisyphus, where are you getting your 200% from?

Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate. 

 Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate.

Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate. 

 Now you’re switching between blaming the church at 100%, and blaming the priests at 100%.

Who is it Sisyphus? The church or the priests?
Which deserve your 100%?
Or are you currently at 200% blame?

Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate. 

Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate. 

 Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate.

Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate. 

Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate. 

 Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate.

 Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate.

 ”revulsion over priests who prey on minors”

And that’s ‘kinda’ condemning to you?
By the way, those are his actual words.  Not your ‘kinda’ words.
Of course, he also says that “its no excuse for this scandal” in his preamble for talking about cultural liberalism.  Yet, you ignore that too.

Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate. 

Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate. 

Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate. 

You’ve gone from shifting arguments to shifting what you’re calling me!
Neat.
This indicates that you’ve run out of any air of argument.

 Derp Derp Derp – you couldnt get that last one out could you Johnny?

Hahaha.  Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate.

That’s derptastic Johnnny…Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Checkmate.

I can’t believe you’re going to lie about that too – I copied and posted your whole comment up to the link.  What’s with the backpeddling Derpina?

 You dismiss the victims when you try to blame someone else… besides… who?  The victims???
Wait… maybe he should have expressed sympathy for the victims and revulsion over the priests and frustration with the church?

“Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in
the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests
who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical
leadership. “

You’re creating a false delemma here Derpina…a logical fallacy to detract from the main issue and subject of the article above – Santorum blames liberals for what the priests did:

“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

Do liberals have to be blames for the acts of Catholic presits?  Is your derptastic world maybe…hahhaha

I’m backpedaling?
Sisyphus, I’m trying to keep up with you as you do a full retreat from your original ‘Santorum endorses child-rape’ argument!!!

 De.
Lus.
Ion.
Al.

 Why checkmate?
Repeating that quote DOES NOT dismiss the fact that Santorum found the priests repulsive, and called out his frustration with the church,  It doesn’t.  And it certainly doesn’t forward your argument that Santorum was okay with child rape.
You’ve lost… and you’re saying “checkmate!” while turning over the board.  “I WON!”, you repeat, as you run around the room, high-fiving yourself.

 Okay.
So when I called you out on writing “anotherwords,” I didn’t realize that I actually was arguing with a special needs person.

Right.  Checkmate.  Right.
Before I leave you to celebrate your “win”, Sisyphus:

Where’d you get your 200% from?
Who do you blame 100%?
The church?
The priests?
Or Santorum?

(I forgot the possibility that you might have “300%” blame to give around.)

Wow – you’re more of an apologist than Santorum!  Look at you go!

His fake pretense cannot negate his comments:
“While
it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat
of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

The term “it is no surprise” my dim-witted friend, means that one can see how this would happen.  It means that it is expected versus a surprise.

So if Santorum says “it is expected” that “…cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

I took out the other reference in that statement because we are not interested in how he thinks everyone from Boston is a bunch of rapists…LOL.

Checkmate becuase santorum thinks “…cultural liberalism in America, lies at the
center of the storm.”

You think the article is about his puffed-up apology, and I say that it’s about his blaming libarlism for religious rapists…checkmate!

 Ah!
A fourth (?) nickname/namecalling!
Always a sign that one has a winning argument.

We need to move to the true/false thingie, so that you can properly ignore what I write:
Did I write the following:
“You’re literally pulling parts of sentences out of paragraphs to
suggest that Santorum was okay with this, when the very question he was
being asked was about his previous essay in a catholic magazine calling
the priests involved “repulsive.”

True/False?

Zinnnnggggggg – if you’re not backpedaling and redirecting, you’re throwing out the red herrings.  You’re a fallacious nightmare!

 I think you’re met your creel limit on Red Herring today derpina.  I’ve never said 200% of anything – try to keep up genius.

That’s cute – my kids do that when they are posting too…

Full retreat?  Nah, I’m just bored of that one – however, now that you mention it, Santorum does say that;

“In this case, what we’re talking about, basically, is priests who were
having sexual relations with post-pubescent men. We’re not talking
about priests with 3-year-olds, or 5-year-olds. We’re talking about a
basic homosexual relationship.”

Hahaha…a basic homosexual relationship?  I’m sure you approve Johnny!

You want me to tell you if you wrote something?  Are you on meds or something?

By the way, I guess if name calling is winning an argument then I guess you were wining last night with “You’ve gone from being bizarre to an asshat.”? 

LOL…where do you come up with this stuff?  You’re like a cornered badger just letting it all fly…throw it all Johnny, let’s see what sticks!

 Yeah, probably would have been more sincere without the whole blaming the liberals thing that led to this article:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.”

Rick Santorum – blaming liberals for the Church’s child molestation scandal since 2002:

“While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.” 

Way to spread some of the responsibility for this around Ricky boy!  Glad we booted your pius behind from our State Senate.  What a shameful creep.

Child rape is against the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. — Rick Santorum

 ” Still ignoring the whole reason for this article…he blames liberals for what the priests did:”

That is not the reason for this article. That was done already . In the first question Tommy highlights….

AP: Speaking of liberalism, there was a story in The Washington Post about six months ago, they’d pulled something off the Web, some article that you wrote blaming, according to The Washington Post, blaming in part the Catholic Church scandal on liberalism. Can you explain that?

The reason for THIS article is that Tommy was called out for defending Olbermann’s denial of sexual assaults at occupy encampments. He got mad and tried to find something similar the right had done. So he writes this….

” this ought to make their vomit vomit: former Sen. Rick Santorum, national frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, is not just a rape apologist, but a child rape apologist”

Show us where Santorum apologized for child rapists.

The media covered this when it happened and questioned Santorum about it. Tommy knows this.

“Post-pubescent men”?? 11-17 yo males are not yet men, for one thing. It’s true that both gay and straight post-pubescent child molesters make up a portion of the Catholic church scandal, but there are other priests who are true pedophiles of pre-pubertal kids of both sexes. It’s all one big unhealthy stew of child abuse by an evil, twisted, tortured hierarchy of clergy who have provided a safe haven for criminals of all types with their irrational, irrelevant, and immature policies on sexual behavior, including the ridiculous “celibacy”, which provides criminals with a veneer of legimitacy to cloak their crimes. It’s all about denial of their own impulses, and the desire to control others. One of the worst abuses of religion for politics ever. And yes, the official Catholic Church is nothing but a worldwide political party in disguise. Nothing against those who can see through the politics and benefit from the good parts of the catholic theology, but those who do need to be agitating for change from within. Having a radical like Santorum misrepresenting your church and running for president is unacceptable. 

Almost everyone that commented on this article missed the point entirely.  Rick Santorum believes that priests molesting boys is the same as a normal homosexual relationship.  That he finds both to be deviant is without question.  A rational person would draw a distinction between the two, but he doesn’t.

He believes that people do not have a right to privacy in their own bedrooms.  He believes that allowing people the freedom to do what they want in the privacy of their own bedrooms, provided that it involves consenting adults, is inimical to our society.  The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that he wants to regulate what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  He’s spoken out in favor of sodomy laws before, and this is not the first time he’s said that he doesn’t believe in a right to privacy.

I do not understand how a political group that claims to want less government interference in their lives can allow this man to be not only a member, but a potential candidate for the presidency.