Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaenneth]

The real question is, why he doesn't know it's origin, who also knowing what it means.

[Jackrabbit]

I'm still astounded that a man whose name has so few degrees of separation from Dick Buttfroth got this far in a presidential candidacy race.

You're telling me you don't know that the "buttfroth" definition was invented during the campaign in order to make him look silly?

Actually that whole redefinition happened years ago and it was the number one search result for santorum up until a few months ago when he started to surge. I'm not surprised that someone didn't know it was named for this Santorum, especially since Blarg doesn't live in the US.

Yeah, didn't it show up in 2007?

[Knight of Fools]

Only in Bay12 will you see people quasi-seriously discussing the origins of the word "buttfroth".

[Putnam]

Only in Bay12 will you see people quasi-seriously discussing the origins of the word "buttfroth".

Nono, the word is "santorum". We're just discussing it's dictionary usage to mean "buttfroth".

[Knight of Fools]

And only on Bay12 can you have a quasi-serious discussion about it.

[Powder Miner]

So... Santorum was the one to manage that stumble, not Perry when he was in.

I am surprise.

[mcclay]

I have a question, why are we defending the man who siad that kids should not go to college because it would make them unChirstian and evil?

[Putnam]

Because everyone deserves a reasonable benefit of the doubt.

[kaijyuu]

@mcclay
Because that's entirely irrelevant. When someone does or says one bad thing, it doesn't mean that every other bad thing they are accused of doing or saying is immediately true.

[Knight of Fools]

I have a question, why are we defending the man who siad that kids should not go to college because it would make them unChirstian and evil?

So, if someone says something we disagree with they're automatically guilty of anything we decide that they might possible be guilty of?


FakeEdit: Dang ninjas.

[Bauglir]

His whole campaign is like watching a slow motion train wreck on a thousand ultra high definition monitors from every possible angle.

In that you wonder just how he got made conductor, and what sort of insanity must grip the people who put him there. And then, a few minutes later as you're getting on with your day, you wonder who thought this deserved the attention of all those cameras, and realize that, tautologically, being considered so newsworthy made it that newsworthy. And then you despair, forever.

[mcclay]

I am saying that because he has a rediclous track record of saying things like my example so why is this time any diffrent.

[mainiac]

I wonder if this will cause Santorum to re-examine his views on teleprompters?

[kaijyuu]

I am saying that because he has a rediclous track record of saying things like my example so why is this time any diffrent.

You specifically asked why people were "defending" him. And we responded why.


Is it horribly surprising if he meant what people are assuming he slipped? Not really. But it IS ambiguous (well some people think it is) whether he did mean it or it was an unfortunate mistake. So of course people are going to discuss what actually happened. In the face of ambiguity, you can't assume the worst just because you don't like other, completely irrelevant things they said. That's a non-sequitur.

[mcclay]

I messed up my statment in my head, I apolgize for rambling inchoerently.