Who's better?

wtf?

You mean dog on man guy?

Hello NK:

Well, you ARE a Canadian....

Mitt Romney strapped his dog to his car roof while the family made a cross country trip... Rick Santorum believes that if gay people are allowed to marry, we'll be on our way to "man on dog" marriages...

excon

Oh..thanks. Carry on.

Neither are looking very good to me at this time. Romney stepped into it big time with the campaign finance disclosures. He seems hell bent to play his Thurston Howell, III image for all it's worth .
Luxury Hotels Of The Romney Campaign

btw ...he did not "strap his dog to the roof". He put the dog carrier on the roof and the dog travelled in relative comfort in the carrier (until it got the runs) . I imagine the dog had a better ride than those frequent cases where dogs are sedated and put in the cargo hold of airplanes.

Santorum needs to know when to make a political answer . He says too much in his replies . He isn't wrong .But ,as the President might say , sometimes his answers could be more "artful" .

I don't know about any man on dog issues, but this appears to be a real story.

Dog on Santorum

He has a single tale of being peed on by a dog ? That's happened to me too often to remember . Sounds like he handled it well.

Hello:

"April 20, 2003, Santorum stated that he believed mutually consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to privacy with respect to sexual acts. Santorum described the ability to regulate consensual homosexual acts as comparable to the states' ability to regulate other consensual and non-consensual sexual behavior, such as adultery, polygamy, child molestation, incest, and bestiality, whose decriminalization he believed would threaten society and the family, as they are not monogamous and heterosexual."

Isn't bestiality man on dog???

excon

The complete unedited interview segment is here
Raw Data: Excerpts of Santorum's AP Interview | Fox News

He's right you know .If the so called 'right to privacy 'is absolute ,then the state has no business making restrictions on that behavior so long as it's consentual. But states have always had the right to define the parameters of what is marriage ;and what is approved behavior in private . He just didn't say it "artfully" .

Here is the real key part of this interview :


Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don't agree with it?


SANTORUM: I've been very clear about that. The right to privacy is a right that was created in a law that set forth a (ban on) rights to limit individual passions. And I don't agree with that. So I would make the argument that with President, or Senator or Congressman or whoever Santorum, I would put it back to where it is, the democratic process. If New York doesn't want sodomy laws, if the people of New York want abortion, fine. I mean, I wouldn't agree with it, but that's their right. But I don't agree with the Supreme Court coming in.