Talk:Rick Santorum

Cleaning up
I did not read the rules before deleting, my apologies. There are many sections of this article that contain biased commentary. For example, the comments on "Foreign Scientists" and "Israel & the Palestinians." In addition, "Rickograms" are quite unnecessary and "2012 Presidential Campaign" is not objective. I would like to "clean up" this page by deleting the parts that contain bias. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Maws / talk / contribs
 * Please read this page, we are not an unbiased encyclopedia. AceModerator 03:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me. I will be on my way. Santorum may be off in his social views (and make some rather polarizing comments), but it would be nice if credit was given with respect to his lack of "baggage" compared to the other GOP candidates despite being in politics since the 1980s and what comes across to me as his sincere desire to "fix" this nation's economic woes.

--Maws (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to stick around. AceModerator 04:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha. Perhaps I could push for edits with a strong bias in favor of Santorum?

--Maws (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but you can write an essay on your user page if you feel that strongly about it. AceModerator 04:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I were to post comments on Santorum to my user page do you think I would be able to stir up a debate about him on my Talk page or would it not receive any notice?

--Maws (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends if others feel like getting in on it. Try it and see. 04:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, since I once met the man and shook his hand, and he once represented my portion of the state commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I may have something to say.  22:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So start a debate. But don't wait on a guy/girl who made a handful of edits on 25th Jan & hasn't been here since to start it, because it probably won't happen.  22:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * D'oh, I saw this page in RC and thought this subsection was it. No idea why.   23:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Should this be taken out?
It's referenced, should it stay in the article? Rick Santorum Let the mob decide. I&#39;m not Jesus (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe if it was written at higher than 3rd grade level? As it reads there, it's awful. -- PsyGremlin  14:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Тyrannis Plead 14:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What was it trying to say? I couldn't quite figure it out. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 14:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You guys are shills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MMPCbYnjUA

Rick here just revealed in this video that Satanism is in Hollywood and I am going to show why you are shills:

So, you guys, realizing your satanist high priests wanted you to suppress the truth, have created this article to slander him. And I will not fall for it.--BnBn (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Supposed "out of context" quote
[] Context doesn't even change the meaning. Trick (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "my quote was taken out of context" is standard arse-covering stuff after someone's idiotic statements gain wider circulation than they hoped. "my twitter account was hacked" is catching up fast, though. Bicycle  wheel silverbrain.png 19:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the context surely changes the meaning. "I don't care about unemployment because I don't care about those people," is different than, "I don't care about unemployment because if I give business the freedom it needs to do the job, then the private sector will take care of unemployment."
 * A site devoted to rational thought doesn't really have any good reason to quote two sentences out of context like that. Let the reader see the context (which is, I'd think, ridiculous enough without painting a misleading picture).
 * To Bicycle: I am not a Santorum supporter, so your comments are not appropriate. Phiwum (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rational! That's a new comment, do you feel clever? Anyways, context still doesn't really change anything (to me), but adding it is much better than trying to blatantly remove it like before. I'll admit it could've used some sourcing as it was before, at the very least. Trick (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, that's an old comment at this site, but honestly, my comment stands. Lack of context can be misleading, and adding context can avoid that problem.  I don't know why anyone should be opposed to context where readability is not an issue. Phiwum (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing literally nobody is showing opposition to it then huh? Trick (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose that I read your first post and reversion as opposition, but if we're not arguing, let's not argue. Phiwum (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Dutch euthanasia
Seriously? I think it's unbelievable that politicians on the nuttier side of the spectrum campaign by saying shit like this. So, do a lot of people on the other side of the Atlantic actually believe this kind of nonsense? Oh well (Tell Me What To Think) and (I'll tell you what to feel) 13:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering the death panel hysteria promulgated about the U.S.'s own health care system or Allen West's ludicrous claim that 80 Democratic members of the House of Representatives are Communists, should it really surprise anyone "that politicians on the nuttier side of the spectrum campaign by saying shit like this" about other countries? ScepticWombat (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)