"Father Landry aimed his cellphone camera at one of the men and 'snapped a photo of his derriere,' he said. 'Because it’s exactly what I’m trying to do.'"
That's a hilarious article. Only someone in an advanced state of paranoia would think that opposition to birth control is anything other than a tiny fringe position. That the New York Times is trying to convince people that there's some sort of constituency for this is extremely funny. I don't know if this is A) simply red meat for the advanced paranoiacs in the party in order to convince them to donate to Obama or B) it's simply that some New York Times reporters are the sort of people who are in an advanced state of paranoia (highly unlikely, but possible I suppose). Very revealing either way.
Direct quote: "My position is birth control can and should be available. My personal position is well known, obviously well known. As a Catholic - and I do my best to be a faithful Catholic - my wife and I don't believe or practice birth control as an article of faith of our church."
Also, he has voted for bills which provide federal funding for birth control many times when he was Senator. So I guess part of the strategy is to whip as many people as possible into an advanced state of paranoia and this strategy may be working. (I honestly didn't think it had any possibility of working, since it's so obviously absurd, but you're making me reconsider.)
I meant opposed in the sense of wants to make illegal, which Santorum doesn't. I don't know why anyone would care that Santorum thinks birth control is wrong, when he doesn't want to do anything about it. He is to birth control what John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are to abortion.
That's a hilarious article. Only someone in an advanced state of paranoia would think that opposition to birth control is anything other than a tiny fringe position. That the New York Times is trying to convince people that there's some sort of constituency for this is extremely funny. I don't know if this is A) simply red meat for the advanced paranoiacs in the party in order to convince them to donate to Obama or B) it's simply that some New York Times reporters are the sort of people who are in an advanced state of paranoia (highly unlikely, but possible I suppose). Very revealing either way.
ReplyDelete"Only someone in an advanced state of paranoia would think that opposition to birth control is anything other than a tiny fringe position."
ReplyDeleteWhat about Santorum?
Direct quote: "My position is birth control can and should be available. My personal position is well known, obviously well known. As a Catholic - and I do my best to be a faithful Catholic - my wife and I don't believe or practice birth control as an article of faith of our church."
ReplyDeleteAlso, he has voted for bills which provide federal funding for birth control many times when he was Senator. So I guess part of the strategy is to whip as many people as possible into an advanced state of paranoia and this strategy may be working. (I honestly didn't think it had any possibility of working, since it's so obviously absurd, but you're making me reconsider.)
ReplyDeletehttp://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/rick-santorum-contraception-birth-control-sex.html
ReplyDeleteI meant opposed in the sense of wants to make illegal, which Santorum doesn't. I don't know why anyone would care that Santorum thinks birth control is wrong, when he doesn't want to do anything about it. He is to birth control what John Kerry and Ted Kennedy are to abortion.
ReplyDelete