Comments on: Last Thoughts on Santorum

By: Meban

Meban — Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:00:49 +0000

Niccceee pagee

By: Jeremy Scharlack's Blog

Jeremy Scharlack's Blog — Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:26:53 +0000

Right to Privacy?

Matthew Yglesias proposes: So why doesn’t someone write up a federal “right to privacy” statute or maybe even a constitutional amendment… The existence (and scope) of a right to privacy in the constitution is a matter of some controversy, and…

By: Perry de Havilland

Perry de Havilland — Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:32:35 +0000

Excellent post. Sex with marmots sounds rather interesting though.

By: Chris Lawrence's weblog

Chris Lawrence's weblog — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 23:29:39 +0000

The Santorum Fury

Dan Drezner has caught up with the Santorum debacle today; as usual, he has good points, pithily stated. TV punditry,…

By: X-Tra Rant: Life In Digital

X-Tra Rant: Life In Digital — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 22:52:40 +0000

Political Links Before I Go

Politcal Link Friday: More about Dean, Clinton gave advice to Blair, Santorum (R-Homophobe), WMD lies, Repubs using 9/11 victims as political props, much more.

By: Devin

Devin — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:53:53 +0000

If we are amending the constitution Iâ??d like to offer a suggestion. Just one little piece of punctuation inserted in to the first amendment as follows â??Congress shall make no law! (Exclamation mark)â?¦”

By: Chip Taylor

Chip Taylor — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:44:01 +0000

Radley Balko: Principled defender of sexual freedom! And not just lately, either.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:46:06 +0000

“When man starts to realize the power of love is stronger than the love of power, we will all be much happier people.”

-Hendrix

By: Damn It To Hell

Damn It To Hell — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:37:30 +0000

Jungle Love and other “Taboos”

The Agitator Weighs in on Senator Santorum’s inane comments regarding homosexuality. This is a pull no punches piece. A great

By: Jeremy Scharlack's Blog

Jeremy Scharlack's Blog — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 17:02:12 +0000

The Santorum Thing

I thought that with the Hiatus I took from blogging (I was busy, OK?) I would miss my chance to comment on this whole Santorum anti-gay comments thing but the issue is still generating some interesting discussion. One of the…

By: Chris Farley

Chris Farley — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:46:39 +0000

Oh, please, Radley. You’re a Hoosier. Tell me you’ve never “cuddled” with a farm animal. Don’t all Hoosiers do that?

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:33:45 +0000

Goats. Icky.

By: Joel Stewart

Joel Stewart — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 16:16:18 +0000

I hate to call your blog a waste, but this entry is so dearly needed to be read by the wider “Fox public”.

Printed and posted.

Thanks for expressing what I try to regularly.

By: hawkeye

hawkeye — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:30:33 +0000

jim…can you really resist the monkey butler comment here…it really brings the discussion to a new level, given that these monkey butlers are essentially taking the place of humans when it comes to serving us, so then why not when servicing us???
hmmm…and then of course there is the whole issue of lesbian monkey butlers…this needs to stop

By: Frank N

Frank N — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:29:12 +0000

Two things- “And we mean it” shouldn’t be added to the Bill of Rights but rather at the end of the 10th amendment. Then the 10th is tatooed on the backhand of EVERY incoming poltician into Washington.

Second- What do you mean “we shouldn’t shave kittens for kicks”? Am I exempt? I do it for medical purposes.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:18:30 +0000

But what about the tenth amendment?

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Doesn’t this give the states a lot of latitude?

By: B Kieffer

B Kieffer — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:15:58 +0000

“A joke among libertarians says that if we could add one amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it would say, simply: ‘And we mean it.’”

–You know some elected or appointed jackass would try to interpret that as having some other intent. Perhaps they intended that the constitution should always be interpreted in a way that places the issue midway between two extremes…. or any of the other definitions of “mean”.

Santorum 9:14

By: Jim M

Jim M — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:32:20 +0000

Y’know, I got to the part about beastiality and I really started wondering where things were going and then I got to:

“I should add here, that I’m very uncomfortable with the territory we’ve wandered into, here.”

That’s two of us.

I’m personnaly ok with romances between humans and mammals (and sometimes fish) but I draw the line at reptiles, amphibians, birds, insects and the rest of the fish. If you’re having sex with single celled organisms you’ve got bigger problems (well, a much, much, much, much smaller problem) than our legal system can deal with.

Also, you do know that somebody, sooner or later, is going to make a comment about ummmmmmm, “relations” with monkey butlers.

By: sean

sean — Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:26:48 +0000

ben-wa balls – they’re chinese

benoit balls would be french, who would use those?