To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Sorry, that was a long explanation why people shouldn't just stay quiet and take the physical or verbal abuse.
Santorum got what he deserved, you can go on all about the sanctity of marriage(which was born in the idealised world of 1950's US), but he did go too far. Just like his gaffe with "black people don't need welfare" or his continuing remarks against gays.
His speech amounts to the same level of speech that school jocks direct at the geeks. No wonder the other side responded with an appropriate response. Or would you tell your kid to suck it up and ignore it?
At no point have I defended Mr. Santorum's speech, nor did I ever suggest that those who feel attacked by his comments should just "take it". Please check me on this assertion. You're totally missing my point.
Let me put my point another way. Is a vigilante response to a crime justifiable? Or should the victims of that crime follow the prescribed judicial processes to seek redress?
The attack on Mr. Santorum that the OP was soliciting is essentially a virtual vigilante action that I'm arguing is NOT an "appropriate response". Better options are available.
Love Thom's idea to try to extradite him for violating Dutch law, though, as morally equivalent to the US effort wrt TVShack. THAT's an appropriate response!!! :-D. I sometimes just stand in awe of the arrogance of my own government. *sigh*





Member since:
2007-04-25
That's a much longer elaboration on your thesis that it's OK to abuse people with whom you disagree, but I'm afraid I didn't find it any more convincing than the short version. Sorry.