Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Former Senator Alan Simpson had some choice words for his one time colleague, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.


"I know Santorum, I served with him," he said. "He is rigid and a homophobic. He believes that gays and lesbians, he mentioned in an interview in 2003, about bestiality, and gays and lesbians. I think that's disgusting," said Simpson.


The former three-term Republican senator from Wyoming, who has always been known for both his candor and his ability to work across party lines, said Republicans are hurting themselves by focusing on social issues.


"Here's a party that believes in government out of your life, the precious right of privacy and the right to be left alone. How then can they be the hypocrisy of fiddling around in these social issues? We won't have a prayer," he told Bob Schieffer in an interview for CBS News' Face to Face, a weekly web interview from the staff of Face the Nation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57 ... ator-says/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dbackjon wrote:Former Senator Alan Simpson had some choice words for his one time colleague, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.


"I know Santorum, I served with him," he said. "He is rigid and a homophobic. He believes that gays and lesbians, he mentioned in an interview in 2003, about bestiality, and gays and lesbians. I think that's disgusting," said Simpson.


The former three-term Republican senator from Wyoming, who has always been known for both his candor and his ability to work across party lines, said Republicans are hurting themselves by focusing on social issues.


"Here's a party that believes in government out of your life, the precious right of privacy and the right to be left alone. How then can they be the hypocrisy of fiddling around in these social issues? We won't have a prayer," he told Bob Schieffer in an interview for CBS News' Face to Face, a weekly web interview from the staff of Face the Nation.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57 ... ator-says/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's right, conks will get taken to the woodshed in a culture war.

dbackjon wrote:"I know Santorum, I served with him," he said. "He is rigid and a homophobic. He believes that gays and lesbians, he mentioned in an interview in 2003, about bestiality, and gays and lesbians. I think that's disgusting," said Simpson.

Are there some words missing in this quote?

Jon, Alan Simpson was once one of the most respected and powerful Senators in our government, but his party went of to the extreme right leaving him in no mans land, while the hordes of lesser Republicans followed the tea baggers and religion freaks like the lemmings they are.

Alan Simpson is what the GOP should look like, but just look at them now.

One trick pony...

Wedgebuster wrote:Jon, Alan Simpson was once one of the most respected and powerful Senators in our government, but his party went of to the extreme right leaving him in no mans land, while the hordes of lesser Republicans followed the tea baggers and religion freaks like the lemmings they are.

Alan Simpson is what the GOP should look like, but just look at them now.

Yup - Simpson was a GOPer I could respect

Wedgebuster wrote:Jon, Alan Simpson was once one of the most respected and powerful Senators in our government, but his party went of to the extreme right leaving him in no mans land, while the hordes of lesser Republicans followed the tea baggers and religion freaks like the lemmings they are.

Alan Simpson is what the GOP should look like, but just look at them now.

Can HE run for president?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Jon, Alan Simpson was once one of the most respected and powerful Senators in our government, but his party went of to the extreme right leaving him in no mans land, while the hordes of lesser Republicans followed the tea baggers and religion freaks like the lemmings they are.

Alan Simpson is what the GOP should look like, but just look at them now.

Can HE run for president?

No. The GOP no longer accepts his kind.

Brilliant quotes highlighting the disgust with which even fellow Conks regard their lambs to Obama's 2012 slaughter. Conks should just retire from this board, cuz it's gonna be ugly for years.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Can HE run for president?

No. The GOP no longer accepts his kind.

THis registered GOP'er does.

And there are a lot more like me than you might think.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
No. The GOP no longer accepts his kind.

THis registered GOP'er does.

What happened to your Libertarian "conversion", Schmuely? Not enough money in it for you?

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
THis registered GOP'er does.

What happened to your Libertarian "conversion", Schmuely? Not enough money in it for you?

I don't think you can register as a Libertarian in Arizona.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
What happened to your Libertarian "conversion", Schmuely? Not enough money in it for you?

I don't think you can register as a Libertarian in Arizona.

There's always we Obamacrats. Love to have you on board. Got any cash lyin' around that CU, big boy???

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I don't think you can register as a Libertarian in Arizona.

There's always we Obamacrats. Love to have you on board. Got any cash lyin' around that CU, big boy???

Nope. An ex-employee stole it all.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Conks should just retire from this board, cuz it's gonna be ugly for years.

You got that right, but I'm surprised that you agree that more Dems in office is an ugly thing. You are really turning over a new leaf.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
There's always we Obamacrats. Love to have you on board. Got any cash lyin' around that CU, big boy???

Nope. An ex-employee stole it all.

Come on, Z. Come to the Progressive side, the real "right" side. Shed yourself of those whack jobs like Santorum and Gangrene and that asshole state rep in Indiana and Reagan and Rove and Sarah Palin and Tim McVeigh. Be a part of an intelligent, thoughtful and thorough process to cure the ills of society.

Leave the ghosts of the Churches behind as you walk hand in hand with me and D and kalmie and mainejeff and jellymuffin down the the golden road to Understanding and prosperity, equality and peace. Reject your money-grubbing ways and trade your Escalade in for a Fiat.

Tune in, turn on, drop out of your $900,000 palace in the desert and move with us to a cucumber commune in Nebraska to live the simple life, secure in the knowledge that Democrats will line your path with rose petals and government checks.

Whaddaya say, buddy-old pal???

89Hen wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Conks should just retire from this board, cuz it's gonna be ugly for years.

You got that right, but I'm surprised that you agree that more Dems in office is an ugly thing. You are really turning over a new leaf.

Word twisting'-ass East Coast dick!!!!

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Nope. An ex-employee stole it all.

Come on, Z. Come to the Progressive side, the real "right" side. Shed yourself of those whack jobs like Santorum and Gangrene and that asshole state rep in Indiana and Reagan and Rove and Sarah Palin and Tim McVeigh. Be a part of an intelligent, thoughtful and thorough process to cure the ills of society.

Leave the ghosts of the Churches behind as you walk hand in hand with me and D and kalmie and mainejeff and jellymuffin down the the golden road to Understanding and prosperity, equality and peace. Reject your money-grubbing ways and trade your Escalade in for a Fiat.

Tune in, turn on, drop out of your $900,000 palace in the desert and move with us to a cucumber commune in Nebraska to live the simple life, secure in the knowledge that Democrats will line your path with rose petals and government checks.Whaddaya say, buddy-old pal???

That's a real enticing offer...

Cap'n Cat wrote:Come on, Z. Come to the Progressive side, the real "right" side. Shed yourself of those whack jobs like Santorum and Gangrene and that asshole state rep in Indiana and Reagan and Rove and Sarah Palin and Tim McVeigh. Be a part of an intelligent, thoughtful and thorough process to cure the ills of society.

That's some list. A dead POTUS that you secretly adored, an out of work former Gov from a remote state, a strategist who I don't think ever served in office, a whacko that committed a crime 17 years ago (holy crap that was a long time ago)...

Whenever I see one of these threads, I think of Justice Black's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which he warned that the majority's decision to overturn a state law regulating morality (outlawing contraceptives) was an unwise intrusion into the affairs of the state. He felt the Supreme Court did not have the authority to overrule a state law regulating morality, and that it was unwise to do so. He stated that simply because a law was perceived to be a bad law did not provide any constitutional reason to overturn it, and that the remedy for a bad law was for a state legislature to repeal it. In prescient language, he warned of the dangers of constitutionalizing and federalizing issues of morality, and said the he feared for the welfare of the republic if questions of morality were to become constitutional/federal issues.

Today we fight over Washington, because we know the "national" morality is fixed by the federal courts, and the key to controlling the federal courts is controlling those who pick and confirm judges -- the White House and the Capitol. The social extremists on the left started this, but the battle has now been joined the social extremists on the right. And the Republic itself, which use to be the institution which UNITED us -- as it concerned itself with providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and ensuring the blessings of liberty -- is now the place where we are most divided.

If you live in New York and are pro-choice, what should it mean to you if Texas outlaws abortion? New York law reflects the values of the majority of New Yorkers, Texas law should reflect the value of the majority of Texans.

I repeat, so as not to be misunderstood, that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision [p521] of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.

Justice Black's worst fears have come to pass.

89Hen wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Come on, Z. Come to the Progressive side, the real "right" side. Shed yourself of those whack jobs like Santorum and Gangrene and that asshole state rep in Indiana and Reagan and Rove and Sarah Palin and Tim McVeigh. Be a part of an intelligent, thoughtful and thorough process to cure the ills of society.

That's some list. A dead POTUS that you secretly adored, an out of work former Gov from a remote state, a strategist who I don't think ever served in office, a whacko that committed a crime 17 years ago (holy crap that was a long time ago)...

But, Hen, those people, like it or not, are Conk heroes, man!!!!

So Joe - where do you draw the line between civil rights and morality?

Preachers in the south said it was immoral for blacks and whites to share facilities. Should that have been left to the states?

JoltinJoe wrote:Whenever I see one of these threads, I think of Justice Black's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which he warned that the majority's decision to overturn a state law regulating morality (outlawing contraceptives) was an unwise intrusion into the affairs of the state. He felt the Supreme Court did not have the authority to overrule a state law regulating morality, and that it was unwise to do so. He stated that simply because a law was perceived to be a bad law did not provide any constitutional reason to overturn it, and that the remedy for a bad law was for a state legislature to repeal it. In prescient language, he warned of the dangers of constitutionalizing and federalizing issues of morality, and said the he feared for the welfare of the republic if questions of morality were to become constitutional/federal issues.

Today we fight over Washington, because we know the "national" morality is fixed by the federal courts, and the key to controlling the federal courts is controlling those who pick and confirm judges -- the White House and the Capitol. The social extremists on the left started this, but the battle has now been joined the social extremists on the right. And the Republic itself, which use to be the institution which UNITED us -- as it concerned itself with providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and ensuring the blessings of liberty -- is now the place where we are most divided.

If you live in New York and are pro-choice, what should it mean to you if Texas outlaws abortion? New York law reflects the values of the majority of New Yorkers, Texas law should reflect the value of the majority of Texans.

I repeat, so as not to be misunderstood, that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision [p521] of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.

Wrong. Sorry. The Constitution protects not the majority, but those threatened to be overrun by it. Matters that occur between the ears are not subject to plebiscites, and thankfully so.

Reproductive rights and marriage rights are not akin to tax levies for a city park.

dbackjon wrote:So Joe - where do you draw the line between civil rights and morality?

Preachers in the south said it was immoral for blacks and whites to share facilities. Should that have been left to the states?

The line is drawn by the text of the US Constitution. A state law stands unless it violates a specific provision of the US Constitution. A law which prohibits the use of "facilities" based on race violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, i.e., unconstitutional.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Whenever I see one of these threads, I think of Justice Black's dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), in which he warned that the majority's decision to overturn a state law regulating morality (outlawing contraceptives) was an unwise intrusion into the affairs of the state. He felt the Supreme Court did not have the authority to overrule a state law regulating morality, and that it was unwise to do so. He stated that simply because a law was perceived to be a bad law did not provide any constitutional reason to overturn it, and that the remedy for a bad law was for a state legislature to repeal it. In prescient language, he warned of the dangers of constitutionalizing and federalizing issues of morality, and said the he feared for the welfare of the republic if questions of morality were to become constitutional/federal issues.

Today we fight over Washington, because we know the "national" morality is fixed by the federal courts, and the key to controlling the federal courts is controlling those who pick and confirm judges -- the White House and the Capitol. The social extremists on the left started this, but the battle has now been joined the social extremists on the right. And the Republic itself, which use to be the institution which UNITED us -- as it concerned itself with providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and ensuring the blessings of liberty -- is now the place where we are most divided.

If you live in New York and are pro-choice, what should it mean to you if Texas outlaws abortion? New York law reflects the values of the majority of New Yorkers, Texas law should reflect the value of the majority of Texans.

I repeat, so as not to be misunderstood, that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision [p521] of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.

Wrong. Sorry. The Constitution protects not the majority, but those threatened to be overrun by it. Matters that occur between the ears are not subject to plebiscites, and thankfully so.

Reproductive rights and marriage rights are not akin to tax levies for a city park.

What law school did you go to?

What's the source for the claim that there are "reproductive rights?"

For that matter, what's the source of the claim that there are "marriage rights?"