Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Tarheel on March 15, 2012, 04:33:18 PM
-
I'm surprised that no one has posted on this subject today (AUChizad must be taking a nap...?). I've not been a big political fan of Rick Santorum but not for his values, family, and religious views; I'm more concerned about his fiscal credentials and the fact that he supported the loathsome turncoat ex-Senator Arlen Spectre (D-Penn) among other things (I think he's a Big Government Republican for example). This might be another good reason not to support him...especially since "obscenity" is so vague legally, as I understand it, and that's the basis of his approach to prosecute US distributors. And then there's the tyrannical, Chinese approach (my words) that he proposes for locking out access to international sites...
From The Daily Caller, all emphasis is my own:
‘Vigorous’ Santorum crackdown may catch Internet porn viewers with pants down
By Steven Nelson - The Daily Caller 11:37 PM 03/14/2012
Internet pornography could conceivably become a thing of the past if Rick Santorum is elected president.
The unapologetic social conservative, currently in second place behind Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination, has promised to crack down on the distribution of pornography if elected.
Santorum says in a statement posted to his website, “The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws.”
If elected, he promises to “vigorously” enforce laws that “prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier.”
Although the idea of Santorum vanquishing Internet pornography may seem far-fetched, a serious effort to combat online smut might actually be successful, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told The Daily Caller.
“If the government wanted to aggressively move against Internet pornography, it could do so,” explained Volokh. “Here’s the deal: In most parts of the country, a lot of pornography on the Internet would plausibly be seen as obscene.”
There are a few approaches that Santorum could pursue in an attempt to eradicate Internet pornography. “It wouldn’t be that difficult to close down a lot of the relatively visible websites that are used for the distribution of pornography, if they’re in the United States,” said Volokh.
Santorum’s administration could take American-based porn distributors to court for violating obscenity laws, said Volokh, and have them shuttered. But that would leave foreign-based sites untouched.
To black out foreign sites, Santorum would likely need legislative action requiring Internet service providers to use “a mandatory filter set up by the government or by the service providers,” said Volokh.
But the government could also prosecute individual citizens who view porn, and already has the legal authority to do it.
“Although the Supreme Court says private possession is constitutionally protected, it has said that private receipt of [pornography] is not protected,” noted Volokh. “You can’t prosecute them all … but you can find certain types of pornography that are sufficiently unpopular” for easy convictions, he explained.
Most contemporary prosecutions for the receipt of pornography are because the government cannot prove its suspicion that the accused has committed more serious crimes, said Volokh. He speculated that there aren’t more prosecutions because “that prosecutor isn’t going to win a lot of votes in the next election.”
The government would probably need to “find some extra money in the budget for additional porn prosecutors,” joked Volokh. He also cautioned that there would be significant outcry because “sometimes it’s viewed by husbands and wives who watch it to spice up their sex lives.”
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, noted that “What constitutes obscenity remains maddeningly vague,” but added that he’s not entirely convinced Santorum would be successful in an attempt to snuf Internet porn.
“What Santorum would consider obscene is obviously far greater than many Americans,” he said. “Sexual films of consenting adults that are watched by consenting adults are generally presumed to be pornographic but not obscene.”
...
In a primary season laser-focused on talk of “job creation,” said Turley, Santorum’s anti-porn proposal would “attempt to criminalize an industry that is supported by millions of Americans.”
...
Santorum...promised in his anti-porn statement to appoint an attorney general who would carry out his wishes.
...
Source:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/#ixzz1pDVv9Rrz (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/#ixzz1pDVv9Rrz)
-
Fuck this guy. Seriously. Fuck this guy.
Who the fuck is on board for this besides
(http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/church-lady.jpg)
Also saw where he wants Puerto Rico to "Speak Amurican" (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/03/rick-santorum-puerto-rico-english-statehood-/1).
Did I mention, fuck this guy?
-
Legislation of morality is a good idea! Why haven't we tried this before? I bet the results would be outstanding.
-
fudge this guy. Seriously. fudge this guy.
Who the fudge is on board for this besides
(http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/btb/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/church-lady.jpg)
...
I don't make a habit of denigrating someone's faith but...I'm not gonna lie; this ^^^^^^ did make me chortle.
-
I can just picture the lynch mob coming for him...pitchforks and fap rags in the air.
-
The more I think about this...................I just don't have the words.
I heard some lefty blowhard talking about what a hardcore conservative stance this was...yada....yada....yada, but I disagree. This is not being conservative. A true conservative would tell you that it's not the governments place to decide, b/c true conservatives are for minimal government intrusion into your private life. This to me is the same tactics that the left have used over the past few years to force shit on us that we don't want......................anywho, agreement with Chizad, fuck this guy.
-
The more I think about this...................I just don't have the words.
I heard some lefty blowhard talking about what a hardcore conservative stance this was...yada....yada....yada, but I disagree. This is not being conservative. A true conservative would tell you that it's not the governments place to decide, b/c true conservatives are for minimal government intrusion into your private life. This to me is the same tactics that the left have used over the past few years to force shitake on us that we don't want......................anywho, agreement with Chizad, fudge this guy.
Too many of the political left (and the right for that matter!) confuse social conservatism with social statism; one reason why this stance by the right irritates me politically is that it's no better than the Communist Chinese or the fundamentalist Iranians or other totalitarian governments around the world.
-
Too many of the political left (and the right for that matter!) confuse social conservatism with social statism; one reason why this stance by the right irritates me politically is that it's no better than the Communist Chinese or the fundamentalist Iranians or other totalitarian governments around the world.
Fuck-king-THIS.
It is why I said Rick Santorum is the personification of the worst possible candidate imaginable, at least to me.
-
Fuck-king-THIS.
It is why I said Rick Santorum is the personification of the worst possible candidate imaginable, at least to me.
While I don't think he is as bad as you do, I pretty much agree with you and TH as well. I don't like the legislating of morality. I wouldn't worry, this kind of shit would never pass the house as even many in the GOP wouldn't go for this.
-
Too many of the political left (and the right for that matter!) confuse social conservatism with social statism; one reason why this stance by the right irritates me politically is that it's no better than the Communist Chinese or the fundamentalist Iranians or other totalitarian governments around the world.
Definitely agree there...
At the same time, Santorum is just grandstanding to gain favor with his target constituency. Even if he were to be elected, he'd never have the power or authority to impose any of his wingnut ideas without a willing House and Senate. And even if that happened, the Supreme Court would be there to right the ship again. IMO, Santorum's social conservatism is really nothing more than meaningless fodder to distract the masses from his weaknesses on the real issues.
-
Definitely agree there...
At the same time, Santorum is just grandstanding to gain favor with his target constituency. Even if he were to be elected, he'd never have the power or authority to impose any of his wingnut ideas without a willing House and Senate. And even if that happened, the Supreme Court would be there to right the ship again. IMO, Santorum's social conservatism is really nothing more than meaningless fodder to distract the masses from his weaknesses on the real issues.
THIS...all of it. Especially the bold.
I hate to see Chad stroking over something that will never feasibly happen.
-
You are my porno, my lovely porno. You make me happy when skies are gray. You'll never know porn, how much I love you. Please don't taaaaake my porno away.
-
Definitely agree there...
At the same time, Santorum is just grandstanding to gain favor with his target constituency. Even if he were to be elected, he'd never have the power or authority to impose any of his wingnut ideas without a willing House and Senate. And even if that happened, the Supreme Court would be there to right the ship again. IMO, Santorum's social conservatism is really nothing more than meaningless fodder to distract the masses from his weaknesses on the real issues.
In ref. to the comment in bold above you are probably correct in that which leads me back to my original comment in the first post. Rick Santorum has some political weaknesses which he would rather not have vetted so this issue makes for a "con-veee-nient" distraction. (I just had to channel Dana Carvey's 'The Church Lady' there...).
-
In ref. to the comment in bold above you are probably correct in that which leads me back to my original comment in the first post. Rick Santorum has some political weaknesses which he would rather not have vetted so this issue makes for a "con-veee-nient" distraction. (I just had to channel Dana Carvey's 'The Church Lady' there...).
Oh you mean like the fact that he really isn't a fiscal conservative?
-
Oh you mean like the fact that he really isn't a fiscal conservative?
Yes, that could be just a tiny, little problem for his surging campaign hopes.
-
THIS...all of it. Especially the bold.
I hate to see Chad stroking over something that will never feasibly happen.
But couldn't you say this about any political candidate though?
If the dude's got big crazy ideas for what he'd do if he were in office, he probably shouldn't be in office.
I like Ron Paul a lot, especially compared to the three stooges the Republicans are left with, but even I can see that he has some out there positions on what he'd do if he were in office.
You could easily say, "Well, checks and balances would block that shit from ever happening", but doesn't that go back to the point, that even simply saying you want to do that shit is too crazy for the position?
After these latest copyright battles, which I've been following closely than I tend to follow most political topics, I'm not going to be surprised by anything, no matter how uninformed, ineffective, and blatantly anti-liberty it may be, getting through. Ineptocrisy, if you will.
-
But couldn't you say this about any political candidate though?
If the dude's got big crazy ideas for what he'd do if he were in office, he probably shouldn't be in office.
I like Ron Paul a lot, especially compared to the three stooges the Republicans are left with, but even I can see that he has some out there positions on what he'd do if he were in office.
You could easily say, "Well, checks and balances would block that shitake from ever happening", but doesn't that go back to the point, that even simply saying you want to do that shitake is too crazy for the position?
After these latest copyright battles, which I've been following closely than I tend to follow most political topics, I'm not going to be surprised by anything, no matter how uninformed, ineffective, and blatantly anti-liberty it may be, getting through. Ineptocrisy, if you will.
Well, a president could just do what The Pharaoh does and appoint a Czar to implement his presidential edicts along with his cabinet chiefs; bypass Congress and the Supreme Court altogether.
"Internet Porn Czar", now who would you put in that position?
-
But couldn't you say this about any political candidate though?
If the dude's got big crazy ideas for what he'd do if he were in office, he probably shouldn't be in office.
Well, assuming that much of this is just grandstanding and distraction, do you honestly believe that he would do any of this if he were to be elected? I mean, isn't this along the lines of Barry Soetoro claiming that he was going to shutdown Guantanamo Bay and bring all of the troops home during his first year in office? Nobody in their right mind thought that any of that could be possible, and it wasn't. But, he kept saying it... And, people voted for him over those issues.
-
I can just picture the lynch mob coming for him...pitchforks and fap rags in the air.
The more I think about this...................I just don't have the words.
I heard some lefty blowhard talking about what a hardcore conservative stance this was...yada....yada....yada, but I disagree. This is not being conservative. A true conservative would tell you that it's not the governments place to decide, b/c true conservatives are for minimal government intrusion into your private life. This to me is the same tactics that the left have used over the past few years to force shitake on us that we don't want......................anywho, agreement with Chizad, fudge this guy.
fudge-king-THIS.
It is why I said Rick Santorum is the personification of the worst possible candidate imaginable, at least to me.
While I don't think he is as bad as you do, I pretty much agree with you and TH as well. I don't like the legislating of morality. I wouldn't worry, this kind of shitake would never pass the house as even many in the GOP wouldn't go for this.
Definitely agree there...
At the same time, Santorum is just grandstanding to gain favor with his target constituency. Even if he were to be elected, he'd never have the power or authority to impose any of his wingnut ideas without a willing House and Senate. And even if that happened, the Supreme Court would be there to right the ship again. IMO, Santorum's social conservatism is really nothing more than meaningless fodder to distract the masses from his weaknesses on the real issues.
You are my porno, my lovely porno. You make me happy when skies are gray. You'll never know porn, how much I love you. Please don't taaaaake my porno away.
Well it is refreshing to see us all stand united on at least one issue: legislating internet porn.
It's either a good sign...or perhaps the Mayans might be right...
-
But couldn't you say this about any political candidate though?
If the dude's got big crazy ideas for what he'd do if he were in office, he probably shouldn't be in office.
I like Ron Paul a lot, especially compared to the three stooges the Republicans are left with, but even I can see that he has some out there positions on what he'd do if he were in office.
You could easily say, "Well, checks and balances would block that shit from ever happening", but doesn't that go back to the point, that even simply saying you want to do that shit is too crazy for the position?
After these latest copyright battles, which I've been following closely than I tend to follow most political topics, I'm not going to be surprised by anything, no matter how uninformed, ineffective, and blatantly anti-liberty it may be, getting through. Ineptocrisy, if you will.
Truth is, Santorum is a neocon and to a bigger degree so is Mitt Romney. I like Newt economically because he's about the only one on the stage who has concrete proof and results from his policies he touts. I like Paul economically in principle but I see nothing he's ever done worth a hill of beans other than to flap his gums about endless wars, bombing someone to hate us and ending the Fed (which is a good thing in itself). He's becoming full of propaganda to me. I hear a lot of generalizations with him, and to just say "i'll end the Fed" with no plan to actually do it? Means nothing to me. I like numbers, detailed plans, %'s, steps, etc. I saw Newt as the only one who did that aside from Cain and Huntsman.
Like I said, the thing with Newt is - he has put his proposed ideas into play/law once before and the results were phenomenal (94-2000). There is a reason he was very hated in DC and the neocons formed a coup to rid of him. He pissed off way too many good ole boys in the GOP. That's a good thing IMHO.
-
Well, assuming that much of this is just grandstanding and distraction, do you honestly believe that he would do any of this if he were to be elected? I mean, isn't this along the lines of Barry Soetoro claiming that he was going to shutdown Guantanamo Bay and bring all of the troops home during his first year in office? Nobody in their right mind thought that any of that could be possible, and it wasn't. But, he kept saying it... And, people voted for him over those issues.
I guess you could say that the moonbat left are not in their right minds but they sure believed it; and The Pharaoh will have to answer for this to his leftist friends which is why he's probably thankful for the distraction of the Republican Primary. I'm sure he wants it to last as long as possible for this and many other reasons.
-
Truth is, Santorum is a neocon and to a bigger degree so is Mitt Romney. I like Newt economically because he's about the only one on the stage who has concrete proof and results from his policies he touts. I like Paul economically in principle but I see nothing he's ever done worth a hill of beans other than to flap his gums about endless wars, bombing someone to hate us and ending the Fed (which is a good thing in itself). He's becoming full of propaganda to me. I hear a lot of generalizations with him, and to just say "i'll end the Fed" with no plan to actually do it? Means nothing to me. I like numbers, detailed plans, %'s, steps, etc. I saw Newt as the only one who did that aside from Cain and Huntsman.
Like I said, the thing with Newt is - he has put his proposed ideas into play/law once before and the results were phenomenal (94-2000). There is a reason he was very hated in DC and the neocons formed a coup to rid of him. He pissed off way too many good ole boys in the GOP. That's a good thing IMHO.
I can't argue with anyone on the results of Newt's leadership of Congress; it was a good thing and it's worth considering him for nomination but at the end of the day he's got to win more than two states...he's just not doing it unfortunately.
-
"Internet Porn Czar", now who would you put in that position?
Shall I send a resume'?
-
Shall I send a resume'?
It depends on how you define 'obscene'.
-
It depends on how you define 'obscene'.
Well certainly not by shitting in a truck.
-
Well certainly not by shitting in a truck.
Of course not... Now, if you played wiff it...
-
Yes, that could be just a tiny, little problem for his surging campaign hopes.
See I would have forgot about that or never even thought of it if we weren't talking about him wanting to ban porn..............wait...........ahhhhhh, I see what he did there. Clever guy that Ricky boy! :)
-
Let's ban alcohol, cigarettes, fatty food, and contact sports while we're at it.
Hell - this could be something the lefts and rights can all agree on.
Too bad the citizens don't give two shits about it.
-
Let's ban alcohol, cigarettes, fatty food, and contact sports while we're at it.
Hell - this could be something the lefts and rights can all agree on.
Too bad the citizens don't give two shits about it.
You will NOT ban alcohol or fatty foods. I will not allow it. Um, or lingerie football.
-
You will NOT ban alcohol or fatty foods. I will not allow it. Um, or lingerie football.
I'm voting for Snags.
-
I'm voting for Snags.
As long as he names Sani "Porn Czar."
-
As long as he names Sani "Porn Czar."
If nominated I will run.
If elected I will serve.
-
If nominated I will run.
If elected I will serve.
And this is one office where the more dirt from your past that someone brings up...the better for the candidate.
-
Wait... What's this?
http://www.mrctv.org/embed/111144
-
Wait... What's this?
http://www.mrctv.org/embed/111144 (http://www.mrctv.org/embed/111144)
God dammit...
:facepalm:
So just fuck Republicans in general, is what you're saying.
-
God dammit...
:facepalm:
So just fuck Republicans in general, is what you're saying.
You're falling right into some propaganda. That's all this is.
-
You're falling right into some propaganda. That's all this is.
What? By who? The candidates themselves' own mouths?
-
So just fuck Republicans in general, is what you're saying.
These types of politicians will say virtually whatever the crowd wants to hear at any given time. Their party affiliation doesn't matter. In the end, none of these types of statements really mean anything, whether they're coming from Santorum, Romney or the exalted one himself. IMO, you seem to be placing too much credit on the most insignificant topics.
-
What? By who? The candidates themselves' own mouths?
By THEM. The propaganda that is coming out of their mouths. Read GarMan's post about Barry's propaganda in 2008. Its the same stuff. Its crunch time right now and these guys are doing and saying anything that they think will get them a vote over the others. If Santorum thinks he will get 5 more votes than Romney in talking about banning porn, then that's what he will do.
-
By THEM. The propaganda that is coming out of their mouths. Read GarMan's post about Barry's propaganda in 2008. Its the same stuff. Its crunch time right now and these guys are doing and saying anything that they think will get them a vote over the others. If Santorum thinks he will get 5 more votes than Romney in talking about banning porn, then that's what he will do.
So fuck Americans voters?
I need to know who to direct this explosive rage towards over just the passing thought that banning pornography is anywhere in the realm of a good idea in the United States of America.
-
So fuck Americans voters?
I need to know who to direct this explosive rage towards over just the passing thought that banning pornography is anywhere in the realm of a good idea in the United States of America.
Are you really falling for the nonsense?
gul·li·ble/ˈgələbəl/
Adjective: Easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
Synonyms: credulous - naive - trustful
-
Are you really falling for the nonsense?
gul·li·ble/ˈgələbəl/
Adjective: Easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
Synonyms: credulous - naive - trustful
So if a politician says that he intends to make some whacked out crazy policy, the problem is actually with me for believing he might support that policy?
So, if a politician states that he will run on a platform of eradicating the white race, I should vote for him because it's so out there that it will never be implemented? He also has some vague fiscal policies that I think I might agree with, but anytime you get him in front of a mic he talks about this race war thing.
The thing is, I want to believe that making pornography illegal, or implementing a policy that "every home computer that comes into homes in America, has an easy to engage internet filter that blocks pornography" is so ridiculous and anti-liberty that it would never pass. But, obviously people support that shit, hence the applause, and the rabid Santorum supporters. That's more support than I ever saw for SOPA/PIPA, and they're still trying to push that piece of shit legislation through.
Why even entertain the idea? Why does this appeal to enough people that they want to say shit like this, even if they have no intention of making it a law?
You'd better believe shit like that will surface in the general election, and sane Americans will be disgusted by it.
-
So if a politician says that he intends to make some whacked out crazy policy, the problem is actually with me for believing he might support that policy?
So, if a politician states that he will run on a platform of eradicating the white race, I should vote for him because it's so out there that it will never be implemented? He also has some vague fiscal policies that I think I might agree with, but anytime you get him in front of a mic he talks about this race war thing.
The thing is, I want to believe that making pornography illegal, or implementing a policy that "every home computer that comes into homes in America, has an easy to engage internet filter that blocks pornography" is so ridiculous and anti-liberty that it would never pass. But, obviously people support that shit, hence the applause, and the rabid Santorum supporters. That's more support than I ever saw for SOPA/PIPA, and they're still trying to push that piece of shit legislation through.
Why even entertain the idea? Why does this appeal to enough people that they want to say shit like this, even if they have no intention of making it a law?
You'd better believe shit like that will surface in the general election, and sane Americans will be disgusted by it.
Remember, they are ALL in campaign mode. I would look more at their past records and policies than I would campaign rhetoric. Doesn't mean that if they say it they won't do it, but in the context of this - Santorum is playing to his base here and it's pretty obvious. Just like Obama did with the Anti War and Anti Guantanamo rhetoric in 2008. The Afghan war is still ongoing and Guantanamo is still open for business. A lot of it you just have to look at the context of when and how they are saying things. Newt's gas ideas are good and would probably work but it is also playing to the fears of high gas prices. In this case, it's campaign rhetoric AND he would probably do it anyway - killing 2 birds. Something so extreme such as banning porn is obviously pure vote getting.
-
Were there not a ton of Amurikans saying ObamaCare is so outrageous and out there that it would never pass? Amurikans will never let something like that be shoved up their collective asses.
-
Were there not a ton of Amurikans saying ObamaCare is so outrageous and out there that it would never pass? Amurikans will never let something like that be shoved up their collective asses.
Exactly.
-
Were there not a ton of Amurikans saying ObamaCare is so outrageous and out there that it would never pass? Amurikans will never let something like that be shoved up their collective asses.
It was a rare 2 period where the extreme left had both houses and the white house. Not only 2 houses but a super majority in the senate making it filibuster proof. This rarely ever happens. Banning something that is a given right vs universal HC is somewhat apples and oranges.
-
It was a rare 2 period where the extreme left had both houses and the white house. Not only 2 houses but a super majority in the senate making it filibuster proof. This rarely ever happens. Banning something that is a given right vs universal HC is somewhat apples and oranges.
Not comparing the two issues at all. Only saying the stars and planets could align one day and we're wondering how could a Republican controlled House and Senate be trying to shove this(Banning porn or whatever crazy idea) up our asses?
-
Not comparing the two issues at all. Only saying the stars and planets could align one day and we're wondering how could a Republican controlled House and Senate be trying to shove this(Banning porn or whatever crazy idea) up our asses?
I guess it could happen in theory. I just don't see a lot of people in Congress going for an all out ban on something that isn't illegal by nature, as compared to them going for something like Obamacare. There was a history there with Obamacare - of certain people that had been pushing it for years including Obama himself. Santorum has never really mentioned this before from a legislative perspective, never did as a Senator and just happens to bring it up while making the Bible belt and Heartland rounds. I just dont think that is a coincidence. I think there are a TON of the GOP that would not stand for it.
NOTE: With Obama, I never doubted his intent of wanting to make Obamacare a reality. With Santorum I am just not convinced this is true legislation he wants passed. The timing of this blurb is suspect, plus he hasn't made it a hot campaign "issue" as the dems did with Healthcare in 2008.
-
I think my biggest issue with what is being said here, is that as a parent, it's ultimately up to me to monitor my children's internet use. Romney's comments, while I agree to some extent, shouldn't be left up to the federal government to decide, it should be up to me as a concerned parent. Do I want my kids surfing porn on the internet? No, they should have to watch the fuzzy channel just like I did. Are they going to do it? Not while I have the only computer that they can use in the living room, where I can monitor their useage.
Should the computers be sent from the factory with "safe search" mode on? No. Someone who isn't in the same situation as me shouldn't have to adjust their settings, because parents want to shield their kids somewhat.
-
I think my biggest issue with what is being said here, is that as a parent, it's ultimately up to me to monitor my children's internet use. Romney's comments, while I agree to some extent, shouldn't be left up to the federal government to decide, it should be up to me as a concerned parent. Do I want my kids surfing porn on the internet? No, they should have to watch the fuzzy channel just like I did. Are they going to do it? Not while I have the only computer that they can use in the living room, where I can monitor their useage.
Should the computers be sent from the factory with "safe search" mode on? No. Someone who isn't in the same situation as me shouldn't have to adjust their settings, because parents want to shield their kids somewhat.
I'm all for a business innovating an effective pornography filter that they can buy if they want pornography impossible to reach from their home.
Great.
The government censoring the internet like China is so ridiculous, I can't believe we're actually discussing it.
-
I'm all for a business innovating an effective pornography filter that they can buy if they want pornography impossible to reach from their home.
Great.
The government censoring the internet like China is so ridiculous, I can't believe we're actually discussing it.
In his defense slightly, I didn't actually see any mention of enforcing any new laws to prohibit anything. I saw the mention of enforcing already existing laws regarding the distribution of material. That is a little different. The rest of the fodder in the article are quotes from other people, not him.
And guess when Santorum made the comments and where? March 13th, in Miss and Alabama.
-
I want a timed porn filter that goes off after the kid and Mama have gone to bed and I've been up drinking heavily and stumbling around the house...and I've grabbed a jumbo sized bag of Cheeto's and a bottle of KY lu......wait, I mean....damn that Santorum.
-
I'm all for a business innovating an effective pornography filter that they can buy if they want pornography impossible to reach from their home.
Absolutely agree 100%.
As a parent, I should be able to use such a product to keep my kids from seeing it. As a non-parent, you shouldn't be force to use said product.
-
So if a politician says that he intends to make some whacked out crazy policy, the problem is actually with me for believing he might support that policy?
So, if a politician states that he will run on a platform of eradicating the white race, I should vote for him because it's so out there that it will never be implemented? He also has some vague fiscal policies that I think I might agree with, but anytime you get him in front of a mic he talks about this race war thing.
The thing is, I want to believe that making pornography illegal, or implementing a policy that "every home computer that comes into homes in America, has an easy to engage internet filter that blocks pornography" is so ridiculous and anti-liberty that it would never pass. But, obviously people support that shit, hence the applause, and the rabid Santorum supporters. That's more support than I ever saw for SOPA/PIPA, and they're still trying to push that piece of shit legislation through.
Why even entertain the idea? Why does this appeal to enough people that they want to say shit like this, even if they have no intention of making it a law?
You'd better believe shit like that will surface in the general election, and sane Americans will be disgusted by it.
He's merely appealing to a constituency group. Whether you agree with his message or not, you're falling for something that most of us know will essentially go nowhere. And, I disagree regarding the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement. That grew very strong, very quickly, and it was more of a threat than this anti-porn movement. And, as far as I understand it, this anti-porn movement is really just an enforcement of the obscenity laws that already exist.
-
Were there not a ton of Amurikans saying ObamaCare is so outrageous and out there that it would never pass? Amurikans will never let something like that be shoved up their collective asses.
Damn... Have to get caught up...
What was eventually passed under ObamaCare, even though nobody had time to read it, is nowhere near as outrageous as what was originally proposed. This is a watered-down version of what they originally wanted.
-
What was eventually passed under ObamaCare, even though nobody had time to read it, is nowhere near as outrageous as what was originally proposed. This is a watered-down version of what they originally wanted.
Bookmarked.
-
I guess it could happen in theory. I just don't see a lot of people in Congress going for an all out ban on something that isn't illegal by nature, as compared to them going for something like Obamacare. There was a history there with Obamacare - of certain people that had been pushing it for years including Obama himself. Santorum has never really mentioned this before from a legislative perspective, never did as a Senator and just happens to bring it up while making the Bible belt and Heartland rounds. I just dont think that is a coincidence. I think there are a TON of the GOP that would not stand for it.
NOTE: With Obama, I never doubted his intent of wanting to make Obamacare a reality. With Santorum I am just not convinced this is true legislation he wants passed. The timing of this blurb is suspect, plus he hasn't made it a hot campaign "issue" as the dems did with Healthcare in 2008.
That's exactly it. This anti-porn movement isn't going to get massive support from the GOP, even if the Republicans are successful in taking/keeping both houses. This is just worthless noise to appease a constituency.
-
Bookmarked.
Good for you... Even Harry Reid eventually agreed that the healthcare bill was a flaming piece of shit, but it is not the government-control-of-everything-single-payer legislation that they had threatened. Now that the truth of some of this is coming out, it's only a matter of time before it's challenged to pieces or completely repealed.
Obscenity laws have already gone to the Supreme Court, and they exist today.
-
Now that the truth of some of this is coming out, it's only a matter of time before it's challenged to pieces or completely repealed.
You mean like this:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/cbo-report-costs-of-obamas-health-care-program-balloon-by-1-7-trillion/ (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/cbo-report-costs-of-obamas-health-care-program-balloon-by-1-7-trillion/)
A Congressional Budget Office report shows that the cost of implementing President Obama’s health care overhaul will reach $2.6 trillion over a ten-year period, a dramatic increase from the White House’s original estimate.
In 2009, Obama stated that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion over ten years.” The CBO’s original ten-year numbers weren’t that far off, but critics of the health care bill noted then that the cost would be much greater once projections accounted for its full implementation.
Democrats pushed the back-loaded bill into law in 2010, although it isn’t scheduled to be fully implemented until 2014.
-
Absolutely agree 100%.
As a parent, I should be able to use such a product to keep my kids from seeing it. As a non-parent, you shouldn't be force to use said product.
I am a non-parent:
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh209/qxm_photos/Ghosts/randymarshafterwebbrowsre2.jpg)