My thoughts on Rick Santorum are many, and I hope that espousing a few of them won’t permanently destroy my standing in Ohio.
Clearly, Rick Santorum is a man of conviction (although, semi-amazingly, he was at one time pro-choice), and clearly, Rick Santorum is a man whose convictions seem to stem from both the Bible and the Constitution.
Which — the latter intersection of philosophies — presents an interesting conundrum:
Which book is more important to Rick Santorum?
More specifically, which writing/value-set should be considered more important when evaluating the character of a presidential candidate?
Let me throw a hypothetical at you…
If a mythical being (obv. not God) offered Santorum the opportunity to fix the American economy once and for all by having a night full of anal sex, would he be morally incapable of accepting?
If we’re being honest, I think a serious candidate would have to accept.
And that’s the question I’d ask Rick Santorum if I had the platform.
That's the question I'd ask any of the candidates.
If presented with the chance to restore American greatness — however that might look to you — via the relatively simple formality of, let’s say, 20-minutes of anal sex with another man (who of course would be gentle, attentive and understanding of your situation)…would you do it, Mr. Santorum/anonymous-other-candidate?
…
And if the answer I got back was that the perceived word of God comes before a chance to help the country…then that’s probably why the perceived word of God should never influence the in-need-of-help-country’s policies.
Right?
I think so.
Okay, that’s it for the Santorum post.
And so ends the first cogent blend of economic principle and sodomy.
Sincerely,
A half-Jew
