Talk:Rick Santorum

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

The dead babies section is pretty morbid...even by RationalWiki standards... SoCal 212 I can't find my talk page 23:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think we could tone down the wording, but something that... weird... needs to be mentioned. ThunderkatzHo! 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely mention it - it's too bizarre not to - but the tone was a little over the top for an issue like that. SoCal 212 I can't find my talk page 02:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
We've just been 'drive by' edited to completely change the tone of this section. I was going to do a revert but our version is just as one sided as the drive by's.
Seriously, although the Santorum's response was at the extreme end of the spectrum the gist of what they did is recommended practice for coming to terms with a very difficult situation. It's not normal to take the baby home but the rest of it is pretty much by the book. We come across as heartless if we fail to accept this.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack Santorum and his homophobic views but I'm not sure this is one of them. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. I don't really like Santorum for other reasons, but in this case he was grieving. I probably wouldn't do the same thing if it ever happened to me, still, I respect what he did. People have different ways of grieving. Rapier (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but where is this a recommended practice? I can't find anything online about it. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Start with this from What the Santorums (Santora?) did differed by degree, not substance. In particular
With the loss of your baby, your family members will also grieve. Your baby is someone’s granddaughter, brother, cousin, nephew or sister. It is important for your family members to spend time with the baby. This will help them come to terms with their loss. If you have other children, it is very important to be honest with them about what has happened by using simple and honest explanations. It is your decision whether you would like the children to see the baby.
Note, It is important for your family members to spend time with the baby.
As I said above, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to tear Santorum anew one, I hate the bastard to my dying breath, but this is not one of them. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, this was the top entry for googling "greiving for a stillborn child". So it's not hard to find. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Who wants to nominate this as a cover story?[edit]

It would be brilliant to have some Santorum on our main page. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, needs to be cleaned up a bit, but it's almost there. I'll work on it as soon as I have time. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be cleaned, we need to be sure the by-product still remains. For evidence, if you know what I mean. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
*rolls eyes* Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I know, I know, terrible pun. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Did I overdo it? :" Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Mod locked - one hour.[edit]

User:Maws keeps editing out the snark and trusworthy RW info so I have mod locked it for an hour. AceModerator 03:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to lock at the mod level, as User:Maws is not yet autoconfirmed. Blue Talk 03:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
There was a need, I had gone flaccid. AceModerator 03:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Fuck you you suck. I'm not just saying that because I'm drunk. You fascists suck and you'd lose your rights on a site with the kinds of fascists you'd like to become. I'm watching you Blue. Don't you dare not lock at the mod level. Go be a fascist cunt. Fascist. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 03:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up[edit]

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. — 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. Sam Tally-ho! 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. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 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. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
D'oh, I saw this page in RC and thought this subsection was it. No idea why. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 23:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Should this be taken out?[edit]

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar.

It's referenced, should it stay in the article?
Rick Santorum
Let the mob decide. I'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. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Good post!ТyrannisPlead 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[edit]

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[edit]

[[1]] 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. BicyclewheelModerator 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[edit]

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)