Posted on 03/15/2012 11:00:14 AM PDT by timlot
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich in a face-to-face meeting: When MIM’s Executive Director Dawn Hawkins asked former Speaker Gingrich if he will enforce existing laws that make distribution of hard-core adult pornography illegal, he responded: “Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws.”
6 years later.......
Sorry.
“Sorry, but no. I don’t want a nominee for President who believes this would be part of his/her job.”
Many times it has been said the POTUS should act as a bully pulpit. Santorum has his issues. Pornography and birth control apparently are some. Additonally, I trully think you exagerate Santorum’s fixation on this.
“I have no problem with contraception. I don’t even know anyone who has a problem with contraception. It’s a fringe position. Opposing government mandating contraception coverage is something virtually ALL conservatives agree on. Opposing contraception in general is something that most conservatives don’t agree on - and as an issue it would be a spectacular loser in a general election.”
Well then let me introduce myself to you. I go by the name of Sola Veritas on FR. I am an active Southern Baptist and I DO have problems with birth control - and know MANY others that feel the same way. I do not think unmarried women should have access to birth control pills. The unmarried should not be engaging in sexual intercourse. The arguement that “they are going to do it anyway” is surrender to me, and I don’t buy it. Plus, I’ve seen too many unmarried women that get pregnant that had full access to pills and all forms of contraception and they still got pregnant (ask Sarah Palin’s daughter). I’ve known too many young men that refuse to use condums because it messed with their enjoyment. Our culture is too pleasure oriented that this needs to be discouraged.
Even for married persons, I do not think that birth control pills are a wise means to prevent pregnancy - they mess with a woman’s natural hormonal cycle and there are risks involved. Ethically, progesterone based pills are just an abortion drug in that they keep a fertilized egg from inplanting in the uteris - they are a RU486. Estrogen based pills are not abortion drugs....they work by suspressing ovulation by tricking the woman’s body into sensing it is pregnant. So, my objections to this are not moral but concern for potential side effects. Taking estrogen based pills for years to suppress ovulation does not strike me as inherently wise. Plus, I “suspect” it causes many women to have trouble becoming pregnant later on when they chose. A married couple using a little self control and science can effectively avoid pregancy while still having a satisfying sex life. Also, when they are ready to have children, it is so much easier.
Now I DO NOT hold to a viewpoint that sex, in marriage, is just about procreation. I think it is something God chose to bond a married couple closer together. Sex is good, but only in the context of monagamist hetereosexual marraige.
IF you think my position is “fringe” then you run in extremely narrow circles, or don’t associate with serious evangelical Christians.
How do you think your positions are viewed by the electorate as a whole?
Rick Santorum is a big government statist. He belongs in the Democrat Party.
“and I think Rick Santorum has only narrow appeal to those who are voting for who they think the most religiously acceptable candidate within the confines of a GOP primary is.”
Then you aren’t paying attention to the news, because (much to my surprise as well), Santorum is doing much better than Newt. There must be a whole lot of those people looking for the “religiously acceptable candidate”....and they vote. I’m socially conservative, and I frankly am quite surprised at how well Rick Santorum is doing. Winning AL and MS was very telling to me.
Like I said, I still primarily support Newt because I think he is the most balanced. However, I would be almost as pleased with a Santorum win. Also, I think Newt should be working with Santorum to beat Romney.
However, go ahead a be a fool and so polarize the Newt vs Rick groups to the point that IF one can beat Romney....the other is so bloodied they are ruined.
It’s not the govt’s business to regulate sexual behavior. Period!
The citizens must have Liberty in order for morality to thrive. Every Christian should know this.
“How do you think your positions are viewed by the electorate as a whole?”
Honestly, I don’t care! However, as I wrote elsewhere, I think Santorum’s positions aren’t seen as extreme as all the screaming here would indicate. Otherwise, why did he win in AL and MS? Obviously, he resonates with some.
Also, I think Obama is so terrible unpopular that even a “Social Conservative” like Santorum can beat him. However, IF the lawless/libertarian/libertine streak I sense here on FR is that virulent? I think the Santorum haters here are more ridiculous on this than the general electorate.
Also, be realistic. Do you really think that the general electorate will believe that Santorum can stop the use of birth control on his own, or even stop internet porn?
Do I think Newt is the better choice. Most definitely yes. However, the people voing in the GOP apparently don’t agree. Do you want a Romney even near sitting in the chair of POTUS? That scares me.
You can screw roosters or holes in the wall. Nobody gives a crap. Just keep it in your home or temporary abode and off the public airways and out of the public in general and you, me and the rooster are all happy.
“Rick Santorum is a big government statist. He belongs in the Democrat Party.”
Specious reasoning. Rick Santorum is both a Social and National Defense conservative. That is not in anyway being a “Democrat.” The Tea Party is kidding itself if it thinks the size of government is going to shrink. At best it will stabilize. The problem with attempting to “shrink” the government is that those institutions that should be left alone (Army, Navy, etc.) get shrunk as well.
Much of the concern here is due to how many believe Rick’s views will be received by the country as a whole especially when there are much more important issues like out of control government growth, high unemployment, and rising gas prices. Many ask themselves what good are family values if I can’t feed my family?
Insult, no.
Unless pointing out that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.
We need you... and you need us.
That is what you forget. And it is what was forgotten with others, such as Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee.
We won’t vote for those types (ie: conservative only in the social arena).
If that’s insulting to you, then you find the past to be insulting.
A specious point if you turn a blind eye to the erosion of Conservatism.
I never said Rick was a Liberal or Leftist. He is, nonetheless, a big government statist; a Democrat, or something the “Democrats” should return to.
“The citizens must have Liberty in order for morality to thrive. Every Christian should know this.”
Liberty only works on a “moral” people. Anyone with sense knows this - as did the founding fathers.
All I know as a Christian is that I cannot make someone “moral” (that is internal) I can only regulate their behavior. So, I’m not advocating regulating morality, just behavior.
Also, as a Christian, it is clear from reading ALL of scripture, that God judges nations where immorality is allowed to go unchecked. The righteous suffer with the guilty. One of the reasons that the homosexual agenda is moving forward is that hetereosexual behavior in this country is deplorable.
“Liberty” in scripture is never used in a context that would suggest it is used for immoral behavior.
There is NOTHING in scripture that would suggest that “morality” thrives based upon the “liberty” to behave in any manner you chose - only to have the liberty to worship God and follow HIS commandments. In fact scripture is clear that GOD ordained government to keep evil in check.
But, but, we have FReepers who are whole-heartedly in favor of the Chinese model.
Well let’s find out how libertine you truly are. Is it too much government to have obscenity laws regarding nudity in downtown wherever you’re from? How about masturbation at the local playground? Fellatio on the A train? Group sex at a public beach?
Why are you arguing that we need the federal government to police this? Are you saying that the city, town, county you live in are such infants that it's impossible for your own neighbors to deal with?
Translation: If I can't make the sorry SOB's believe as I believe then by God I'll make them act as I think they should.
Oh yeah. That is the American way. You would so love states like Cuba, and you don't even have the wherewithal to know it. Disheartening.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
- C.S. Lewis
“We need you... and you need us.”
True, that is what Ronald Reagan was all about. However, apparently (based upon the votes so far) there are more of us (social conservatives IF Santorum is the one trick pony he is painted here) than whatever you stand for. Also, the trully social conservatives don’t compromise much.
Once again, I must remind you that I am a Newt Gingrich supporter. I am convinced he is now socially conservative as well as Santorum....he just isn’t a overt.
Ignore the last comment and let us focus on the path upon which we are agreed, because I am with you there.
And? How is this any different that Obama and other leftists using their own life story to justify pushing their beliefs on everyone?
Just because you believe in something doesn't mean that everyone else does/wants to live by your rules.
By that token, I have the right to force you to live the way *I* want you to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.