Posted on 03/18/2012 7:42:17 PM PDT by Fred
Last week Rick Santorum vowed to end America’s “pandemic of pornography,” insisting that if he were president he would limit the rights of adults to show and view images of consenting adults having sex. No doubt there is too much pornography in this country, and anyone thinking of watching it should go read their Bible instead. But what I want in a president is a pragmatist, not a panderer.
It would have been one thing for Santorum to say that his real crusade is against pedophilia or against child trafficking. Those are real evils that must be stopped. But that’s not what he said.
Here’s why Santorum should stop talking about porn.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
“Ever hear of family filters on the PC? My cable box has a password protected block channel feature. The same parent you are talking to should try those.”
The point is that parents shouldn’t have to expend money to block what doesn’t belong on “public” media anyway. As one poster said, it should be “hard” to find porn. Now the situation is that it is hard to avoid it. That just shouldn’t be. The 1st Ammendment was NEVER about protecting “adult” entertainment....that is a terrible perversion of “freedom of speech.”
He should still be sitting on the Supreme Court today.
lol
Agreed.
So, the only entertainment that should be shown on television is G rated family programming? Where is hard core pornography being shown on the public airwaves?
Seems to me there are real issues out there that need to be addressed. Real issues such as Obama.
Great idea. lets just run on the idea of blocking internet domains too....OPPPs, Obama already tried that one and it failed. How about it telling you what your kids should eat too? OPPPs,....Michel Obama..How about defining hate speech as pornography?
Simple rules : parenting is your responsibility. If you buy them a computer then do your job with them; don't demand the government be every ones parents to avoid responsibility.
Work???, lol....that's not the goal, I know we both know better ;)
Why did we run the B team against the weakest incumbent ever??
A lot of social conservatives want big government...just from the other direction. Just more nanny state BS.
You know that he lost his last senate election badly right?
Not exactly a model of success.
With run away debt & gas prices and families hanging by a thread this is not the first thing on their minds and will not win him an election. I’d be thinking, “I’ll keep an eye on my child, what are you going to do about the economy?” Seriously, all he had to do was turn this around so he could talk about his plans for the financial health of the US. He got suckered because he’s not ready for the job.
cindie
Giving government the power to be your nanny is why we are here in the first place.
There’s no end to it.
I’d rather manage my own life for better or worse.
Rick would be wise to not preach from Gov and he would be wise to beat up Obama for for trying to rule Church Doctrine via the Gov.
Rick would be wise to not preach from Gov and he would be wise to beat up Obama for for trying to rule Church Doctrine via the Gov.
When GWB was POTUS they could imagine that a Dem could never win and use all the new powers that they implemented against them.
But with Obama as POTUS they seem to imagine that he will be the last Democrat POTUS and big powerful Federal government will always take care of us..
The GWB Single Mom tax credit told me that we where screwed. Now we have to tolerate the thought police so the Feds can raise their kids for them too.
We want big government? You think that?
You are clueless. I’ll tell you what we SoCons want.
For starters, how about a return to Sodomy Laws. What’s wrong with that? All 50 states used to have them. And we were a better, more prosperous county then as well.
But noooo.... You libertarians with your progressive “get the nanny state outta my bedroom” attitudes screwed things up for conservatism.
Now - thanks to you - we have homo’s in the military and Obammie in office and things are getting worse.
Newt is way too smart to get tangled up in contraception etc. Do not bundle Newt & Santorum together. Newt would be the best among the remaining 4 in debates against the incumbent. Santorum could easily be trapped into unnecessary social topics.
Oh, these people are hypocrites of the highest order. It’s ok to watch other peoples’ mothers, wives, and sisters, and daughters, but they would NEVER want their own to be involved in such a business.
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.