Frothy can't name any of Rubio's Senate accomplishments

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rick-santorum-marco-rubio-senate-record-218723

Maybe he's gunning for that VP spot if Rubio gets the GOP nomination.

[Rixtex]

That's OK.  No one could name any of Obama's Senate accomplishments either.

[pho]

In the black/white world view of voters, the Senate as a whole accomplishes nothing. They assume Senators have no accomplishments, but don't care.

[Oakvale]

The fat man put it in an ad!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdtNqnJdem8

[Maxwell]

That's the funniest thing I've watched all day.

[Trapsy]

Rubio lives in a bubble. He better be praying Bernie Sanders win.

[wolfsblood07]

Just a thought, I had to Google the word "frothy" in conjunction with the name Santorum to find out why the nickname is used.  Now I know.  This is why we need more limits on free speech.  I would completely support throwing that a-hole in jail on obscenity charges (speaking about the vermin who published it).  The fact that people can get away with doing things like this, is why this country is in a sewer of liberalism and filth. 
As for Santorum naming Rubio's accomplishments, who cares?  Obama proved you don't need any accomplishments.  Just being an empty suit is enough!  Sure, Obama is smart, he's educated, he's elite.  But he never accomplished anything in the real world and is the least qualified person in any room he walks into!

[This account no longer in use.]

Just a thought, I had to Google the word "frothy" in conjunction with the name Santorum to find out why the nickname is used.  Now I know.  This is why we need more limits on free speech.  I would completely support throwing that a-hole in jail on obscenity charges (speaking about the vermin who published it).  The fact that people can get away with doing things like this, is why this country is in a sewer of liberalism and filth. 
As for Santorum naming Rubio's accomplishments, who cares?  Obama proved you don't need any accomplishments.  Just being an empty suit is enough!  Sure, Obama is smart, he's educated, he's elite.  But he never accomplished anything in the real world and is the least qualified person in any room he walks into!

. . .

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Obama proved you don't need any accomplishments.  Just being an empty suit is enough!  Sure, Obama is smart, he's educated, he's elite.  But he never accomplished anything in the real world and is the least qualified person in any room he walks into!

Perhaps this would be true in 2009, but to say Obama is unqualified now....................

[Landslide Lyndon]

Rubio is one of the reasons congress has become such an unproductive place.

[DS0816]

Just a thought, I had to Google the word "frothy" in conjunction with the name Santorum to find out why the nickname is used.  Now I know.  This is why we need more limits on free speech.

What specific limits to people’s free speech do you suggest?

[justfollowingtheelections]

Well as Rubio himself would say "I'm not a scientist man".  Seriously this guy is such a lightweight.  He would be exposed like Sarah Palin was if he wins the nomination and lose by double-digits.

[wolfsblood07]

Just a thought, I had to Google the word "frothy" in conjunction with the name Santorum to find out why the nickname is used.  Now I know.  This is why we need more limits on free speech.

What specific limits to people’s free speech do you suggest?

If the intent is to inflict suffering on a person or damage his reputation using obscene terminology.  There is no excuse for it, no benefit to humanity, and it's not even funny!  In a closed setting, like a live comedy act, it is perhaps different. 

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Just a thought, I had to Google the word "frothy" in conjunction with the name Santorum to find out why the nickname is used.  Now I know.  This is why we need more limits on free speech.

What specific limits to people’s free speech do you suggest?

If the intent is to inflict suffering on a person or damage his reputation using obscene terminology.  There is no excuse for it, no benefit to humanity, and it's not even funny!  In a closed setting, like a live comedy act, it is perhaps different. 

Thank God we have you to determine what is and isn't funny!

[wolfsblood07]

Just a thought, I had to Google the word "frothy" in conjunction with the name Santorum to find out why the nickname is used.  Now I know.  This is why we need more limits on free speech.

What specific limits to people’s free speech do you suggest?

If the intent is to inflict suffering on a person or damage his reputation using obscene terminology.  There is no excuse for it, no benefit to humanity, and it's not even funny!  In a closed setting, like a live comedy act, it is perhaps different. 

Thank God we have you to determine what is and isn't funny!

Not to derail the thread, but another example: A little girl suffering from the disease progeria makes videos on Youtube.  The poor little thing looks horribly disfigured, but she has an innocent loving heart.  There are goofballs posting horrible comments on her videos, and someone even put up a website that makes fun of her and talks about how she should be killed in heinous ways.  I think that should be at least a civil offense if not criminal.  We need to go back to public floggings!
As children, we're taught to respect others, and that it's wrong to say certain things.  But as adults we have courts that allow the most sickening things under free speech.

[Virginiá]

Not to derail the thread, but another example: A little girl suffering from the disease progeria makes videos on Youtube.  The poor little thing looks horribly disfigured, but she has an innocent loving heart.  There are goofballs posting horrible comments on her videos, and someone even put up a website that makes fun of her and talks about how she should be killed in heinous ways.  I think that should be at least a civil offense if not criminal.  We need to go back to public floggings!
As children, we're taught to respect others, and that it's wrong to say certain things.  But as adults we have courts that allow the most sickening things under free speech.

Damn, you're right. All these years, we've been so obsessed with this whole pesky 1st amendment that we lost sight of what's acceptable and what's not. If only we had local speech approval boards to control the flow of information!

[Brittain33]

Not to derail the thread, but another example: A little girl suffering from the disease progeria makes videos on Youtube.  The poor little thing looks horribly disfigured, but she has an innocent loving heart...

...you do know about the incredibly offensive and obnoxious way Santorum talks about gays that caused Dan Savage to start this campaign, don't you?

[PresidentTRUMP]

Since when did accomplishments mean anything to voters (atleast most of them). Obama won two terms with little to no accomplishments. If Rubio picks a VP like Kasich with a BOAT load of accomplishments it will be very similar to Obama choosing Biden who had a very nice resume.

[Leinad]

This is correct, Rubio has done next to nothing. But lots of people don't really care about that--just talking. It's funny how my dad supports Rubio this year, but in 2008 acted like Obama was some nobody that walked in from the street, when in reality they have about the same experience (a few dull years in the senate, several years in the state legislature, and...speeches).

Oh, and wolfsblood:

If you take away free speech, even the "bad" free speech, by giving the government the ability to stop it, your nation is thoroughly screwed. Ayn Rand said: "In the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with a given right's least attractive practitioners." I used to have that on my signature for a while. It's a very important point.

The thing is, what's "good" or "bad" is often very subjective, especially from a legal standpoint. So, personal attacks are bad? What's a personal attack, and what's simply a fair critique? There's no objective way to know! Or is it only "vulgar" attacks? But how do you objectively define what's vulgar? Should we ban talking about gay sex? Fortunately we can't single out them, so it would have to be more all-encompassing. Certainly you won't ban talking about sex in general?

And what if anti-theists--not atheists, but anti-theists--take charge and ban Christianity? I mean, if they feel it's "bad," why should they not based on your precedent? (I'm presuming you're a Christian. And if you are, let me put it this way: what will happen if a pharaoh arises who knows not Joseph?)

This is the same BS nonsense behind not only McCarthyism and censorship laws, but every totalitarian dictatorship ever. Big government controlling our speech--this is literally right out of the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four!

Do you believe in "American exceptionalism?" I don't believe that America is naturally exceptional, but I believe the idea of America is. And it is NOT because we're white, or Christian, or whatever. It's because we value LIBERTY. Liberty to live how you want without hurting others (and "hurt feelings" doesn't count). No official religion, and (ideally) no limits on free speech.

I just can't stand big-government conservatives. People who think "traditional values" means gay marriage should be banned, but think that things like the Constitution only matter when they want it too.


(By the way, guys, I figured out how to get Leinad in the "trigger the preceding poster" thread--attack the first amendment.)