Did Rick Santorum almost let the N-word slip?

Well not that i'm around people who say it a lot, i'm just old I guess :) Are these people prounouncing it wrong, sure they are but look at the list I made above and realize there's a thousand more words you could add to that which people say "oddly". So you asked if there's a word that sounded the same and yeah there is and it fits. I'm not Rick S. so I can't say for sure but in this case i'd give him the benifit of the doubt as by saying what I think he said it would help his campaign in a way. Saying what you think he said would be political suicide. Which do you think is more likely the intent if you're Rick S.?

rgsniper1

too bad the rebublicans let Santorum slip....

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"] Generalizations are bad and anti-intellectual. -Sun_Tzu-

In no way did I say that ALL Republicans are racist.nocoolnamejim

Reading comprehension.DaBrainz

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"] Generalizations are bad and anti-intellectual. DaBrainz

In no way did I say that ALL Republicans are racist.nocoolnamejim

Reading comprehension.DaBrainz

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"] Generalizations are bad and anti-intellectual. DaBrainz

In no way did I say that ALL Republicans are racist.nocoolnamejim

Reading comprehension.DaBrainz

Is anyone pronouncing DaBrainz name like da bears?

Is anyone pronouncing DaBrainz name like da bears?

Agent-Zero

[QUOTE="Agent-Zero"]

Is anyone pronouncing DaBrainz name like da bears?

wis3boi

Is anyone pronouncing DaBrainz name like da bears?

Agent-Zero

lo, Ricky boy, you sure play the part of an open, closet racist.

[QUOTE="Agent-Zero"]

Is anyone pronouncing DaBrainz name like da bears?

DaBrainz

Eh, don't think he was going to say it since it doesn't really make sense in the context. I'd guess he was going to say "negotiator".

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

I'm Catholic. I'm not from America, but reading the policies and views of all the presidential candidates, his views seem the most correctly ordered to the common good.

Speaking of Christian theocracies, here's what Catholic America would look like. You're probably thinking of a 'Christian theocracy' akin to Westboro Baptist Church crap. Santorum isn't like them. If he had it his way, it'd look like the one in that link.

FrozenLiquid

"Human rights, then, are not arbitrary but conform to what God has given and allowed."

How is that not a theocracy? When you define the one and only parametre by which rights are granted, you ultimately define every aspect of life of the citizens.

You're confusing "christian theocracy" with "outrageous religious reign". Thus you feel that you can do away with the label. However, the term doesnt mean only that (yes people do use it in such a way sometimes). Therefore, what your link describes is pretty much a (Christian) theocracy.

Where did I say I do not advocate a Christian theocracy?

I was responding to the first option. So, I didnt say you said that either. I'm just disagreeing with the implied distinction.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

I'm Catholic. I'm not from America, but reading the policies and views of all the presidential candidates, his views seem the most correctly ordered to the common good.

Speaking of Christian theocracies, here's what Catholic America would look like. You're probably thinking of a 'Christian theocracy' akin to Westboro Baptist Church crap. Santorum isn't like them. If he had it his way, it'd look like the one in that link.

FrozenLiquid

Catholic theocracy isnt magically forever relevant just because it coincided with the emerging western civilisation. And I emphasise on the "coincided" part because you'll have to carry out extensive research to prove some sort of causality behind this simple correlation.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"] Last time a Catholic theocracy occurred, Western civilization was built. I wouldn't mind that happening again, actually.FrozenLiquid

Also, a catholic America would conflct with its own constitution.

I'm sold.

Regional pronunciation could have an impact I suppose, but then you have to consider who you're asking me to give the benefit of the doubt to. Here are a few other quotes from the former Senator that he still stands behind. [quote="Rick Santorum"] "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money." nocoolnamejim

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." Rick Santorum comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality

Wow, I must be horrable person, because I have to honestly say neither of those quotes seems all that bad to me. If I'm speaking about black people I would say, I don't want to give you my money but I want you to succeed on your own. Same as i'd say to white people, hispanics and chinese for that matter, hell the same as I do say to my own son. For your second quote according to his religion and the Bible God wasn't near as lienient in events like say Sodom and Gamorah. So yeah, it's crass I agree but he's not saying it's man on child or man on animal. He is simply saying the term marraige is one guy one girl, didn't say that any other word couldn't mean the same type of union between two people, just that word marraige has not only biblical but historical significance to "that" situation. It's like having to clubs, the married club and the whatever you want to call it club. Both are pretty much the same but one says it's got to be guy/girl and the other doesn't.

I'm not against homosexuals having every benifit as a married couple (exactly every benifit for all I care) but I do think marraige is a term for man/woman because that's just what it's always meant. Does that make me a bad person? I hope not. In some crazy way it would be like an Italian person one day saying "i'm canadian", why sir are you canadian? Well, I just decided I want to use that term, what's the big deal. But you're not from Canada right? No but i'm Canadian. But it's always been to be Canadian you have to be from Canada? Or if someone wanted to say I'm Morman, but he didn't fit the morman outlines. Bottom line, it's just a word, but it's a word that has significance and meaning to huge amount of people that differs from what it's been pushed for in the last however long. Marraige had for a long long long time signified man marries woman that's all. Sometimes I think we've become to PC for our own good. I'll end with I have zero zero against homosexual people, i've known (know) some really great ones and I just don't see this as bad that I don't think they should be "married". I think they should pick a name that means marraige between two of the same gender, get all the same perks and downfalls and be good with it. Maybe I don't understand "why" they want to adopt a term that means two of the opposite sex are brought together as marraige does if it didn't fit within the current definition of marraige. Again if it's the process and what it means to them spiritually they would understand that I'd think, and if it's for another reason then why care what word is used?

I don't know, I could be wrong I guess and looking at it from completely the wrong side. I just don't see it. Was going to be done but then I thought about it, a better example would be if an all male football team decided to join a co-ed football league where the guidelines said you were to have guys and girls on your team. If that was the rules for being in the league then you didn't qualify. Now there's nothing stopping you from making or joining the the "any gender" football league that says it can be any mix you want and would be exactly the same type of football just with that restriction loosend on the qualifications. Does that make sense. P.S. I wouldn't cry myself to sleep if Homosexuals got to be married, I personally don't care that much because i'm not that old fashioned or religious. My arguement is more with the use of a word that has religous and historical overtones, I don't know why that needs to be messed with. It seems like it's just to throw salt in some peoples eyes. Again I admit I could be missing something and wrong and just clueless on what the big deal is.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"] Judging from your posts in most political threads it seems to me you have no interest other than to cheer for your team. No matter how wrong your team can be. Thats why I wonder but I already know the answer so nevermind.DaBrainz

wolololol

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] I don't have a "team" to cheer for. If you think I'm an apologist for the Democratic party you really don't know what my politics are. Joshywaa

wolololol

i hope barack obama wins becuz he's an atheist

lo, Ricky boy, you sure play the part of an open, closet racist.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] If the facts were the same I would. But I don't know why you would try to insinuate that I wouldn't by bringing up that pointless hypothetical in the first place though. DaBrainz

If you think I'm an apologist for the Democratic party you really don't know what my politics are.-Sun_Tzu-

Being critical of the GOP =/= being a Democratic fanboy. I have no home in the Democratic party; I am a mere tenant. The moment there is proportional representation in this country I will abandon the Democratic party as fast as humanly possible.

proportional representation

-Sun_Tzu-

That is such a bad idea.

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Judging from your posts in most political threads it seems to me you have no interest other than to cheer for your team. No matter how wrong your team can be. Thats why I wonder but I already know the answer so nevermind.-Sun_Tzu-

If you think I'm an apologist for the Democratic party you really don't know what my politics are.-Sun_Tzu-

Being critical of the GOP =/= being a Democratic fanboy. I have no home in the Democratic party; I am a mere tenant. The moment there is proportional representation in this country I will abandon the Democratic party as fast as humanly possible.

Well it seems that I've prematurely shot my wad on what was suppose to be a dry run, if you will, so I seem to have a bit of a mess on my hands

I doubt he was going to drop a racial slur in the middle of a speech but at the same time, I doubt his intentions matter at this point with so many people thinking that he nearly did.

nippleKiIIyou

Huge lol's to be had at his expense. That's one big slip.Hubadubalubahu

[QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]Huge lol's to be had at his expense. That's one big slip.PSN-SCRODE

[QUOTE="PSN-SCRODE"][QUOTE="Hubadubalubahu"]Huge lol's to be had at his expense. That's one big slip.Hubadubalubahu

[QUOTE="DaBrainz"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Yep. I'll cosign that. The problem that I have with your posts in this thread DaBrainz is that I threw down a TON of evidence that racism is well-within the mainstream of conservatism these days. I didn't generalize by just saying "Some conservatives are racist" and leave it at that. I quoted Administration officials from three different Republican presidents. I put up quotes from three different Republican presidential contenders. I presented evidence from some of the most popular and most followed Republican people in the media. I showed historical context and how a large bloc of states flipped when a race baiting strategy was employed by Republicans.

Basically, I showed a long list of supporting evidence from all-sectors of the Republican party right now and in every decade going back to the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act I SUPPORTED my assertion. It's intellectually dishonest for you not to concede that my point that some of the conservative animosity towards the president is race based when I just dumped a mountain of evidence in your lap. Hubadubalubahu

for instance. http://www.facebook.com/RepJohnFleming this guy has basically turned his facebook page into exactly that. he even talks to people to "debate" them.

And then there's the Ron Paul newsletters...nocoolnamejim

Sorry Jim, but I have to correct you on this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GWff8ay5v4&feature=related

Ron Paul had nothing to do with those newsletters.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]And then there's the Ron Paul newsletters...KamuiFei

Ron Paul had nothing to do with those newsletters.

Seriously.

There is absolutely NO evidence that suggests he wrote it. All it takes is one person to write something like that under his name and the media will bother him about that for the next 20+ years.