Posted on 03/16/2012 10:56:03 PM PDT by Steelfish
But you keep on making personal innuendo and supple attacks, thinking you are clever and coy. Don't worry about me, it looks like you have plenty of issues of your own to deal with, one of them being the need to control the world around you. (Just like your hero)
The leftist (false) argument that we should not 'legislate morality' is not based in the reality of what the laws we almost all agree on are there for.
Your right, and if anything Santorum’s determination to ignore the 1st amendment Prohibition on federal speech law is a reason not to vote for him.
The 1st amendment doesn’t mean congress can only make laws against Obscenity it means congress can’t make any law against ANY speech period. This is the domain of our States not Washington D.C.!
I never claimed that I did. I just assumed that you didn't want to make murder legal. Was I wrong? And how, exactly, was my assuming you are moral 'innuendo' or a 'supple attack?'
btw, as for this 'hero' nonsense. I came to the thread for the issue, not who said it.
I want the Obama administration to obey the laws on pornography, because pornography harms people, destroys marriages, and destroys lives.
Now unless you have something cogent and relevant to add, or unless you want to argue FOR the legalization of murder, which I very much doubt (though again, you may correct me if I'm wrong), there's no reason to continue this conversation.
This discussion is pointless. Moralists are so confounded by logic they resort to the left’s tactic of “if you’re against x then your for y”. In this case “if you’re against regulating the internet you’re for porn”.
I just went through the whole thread. If I had a nickel for everytime the moralists referred to people against regulating the internet as “porn hounds” or “immoral”.......one guy even claimed some Freepers supported kiddie porn.
I’m also amazed at the people talking about the communist’s goal of undermining the family. They site a list which starts at number 21 or something. How about some focus on larger communist aims like the progressive income tax, national health care, or public education.
Crickets. There are moralists here that support big government. Period.
My point is that, regardless of what Santorum says about anything, he will be labeled and attacked by the left, so why should we ask him to not address issues that are important to this country? ALL of them.
He has spent much time talking about the economy, the reprehensible Obamacare, and the media ignores him completely.
We CANNOT let what the left will do with our candidates' words define what we expect them to say. They would be doing the same thing with Gingrich if he were as close to winning the nomination as Santorum is.
They demonize ALL of us, so asking Santorum not to address the lawless Obama administration as he has here, seems to me, to be fighting the wrong battle.
Once again, it is not a matter of making morality a higher priority than the economy. It is addressing all the issues that are problematic with Barack Obama, and his ignoring the law is most definitely among them.
“Obscenity already has a well established legal definition.”
All I could find was vague, problematic definitions like “patently offensive” to prevailing local community standards. A president trying to enforce such a definition would be opening a can of worms. So I must be missing something.
Please tell me, what is the well established definition that is not being enforced?
water is gushing into the Titanic through a 90 metre rip in its hull, ice from the berg is littering the deck, the ship is listing and the problem on passengers’ minds is how to stop men from drilling holes in the ladies’ shower /s
“What’s more of a pressing national problem, in your opinion: jobs, taxes, escalating national debt, Iran getting the bomb and blowing up the Middle East, decimating the Constitution, porn?”
In Santorum’s opinion, it starts with the last of your list.
And that’s understandable from a guy, who in his whole life only had the leadership of a household full of baby cribs... He couldn’t manage anything else. In his own words, he recognized that he is neither a manager, nor a visionary. I think he will remain a pater familias, as he is not made of presidential or leadership material.
“That may well be, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are all laws that ‘legislate morality.’ If we did not have laws to do that, there would be no laws against murder or a father having sex with his daughter.”
Typical. No understanding of force and consent. Using overblown rhetoric to make the case.
Just because you amoralists can't focus on multiple things doesn't mean that those of us who are across the board, anti-Communist conservatives can't talk about the issues in their entirety.
We can.
I SO agree. It's why I can't even watch Fox any more :^D
But I do wish Santorum would .... oh, I don't know how to put this ... wise up, maybe?
Would it be so awful the next time a reporter asks about a social issue to say: "You know me. The people know me...and they know where I stand. Now let's talk about what you're afraid to: (pick one: jobs, fuel prices, judges, Iran, etc....).
This is all I'm asking of Rick Santorum....catch up with us: The media is out to destroy you, so play them a little better!" :)
I'm glad you're here, Ohio.
Sorry if you, as an amoralist, can't deal with historical reality.
Yeah cuz if I’m concerned about the economy like the majority of Americans are, I’m really going to care about this. Look, his first priority should be the economy. I have NO clue where he stands on that. I don’t know his ideas. I hear platitudes and vagueness from him and his supporters only seem to care that he has conservative values. He’s like the 0bama of the right...all the right credentials but no specific ideas. That’s why he’s simply not ready. Even Romney has expressed more specifics than Santorum. There’s plenty of time for him to play King Pious after the pressing concerns of the nation have been dealt with.
Cindie
Stop calling people against regulating the internet “amoral”! What is wrong with you? There are very good reasons to oppose regulating the internet. None have anything to do with supporting porn.
Get a clue.
Wow. Do I agree with THAT!
Maybe some day, he'll actually do that some day....... soon! Wouldn't it be sweet? :)
(And I don't watch Fox either, other than an occasional look at Hannity....Brent Bozell, or somebody like that).
Tom Lehrer explains all:
Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can’t shut,
If it’s uncut,
and unsubt- le.
I’ve never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
“To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance.”
Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they’re hard core.
(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I’m still not satisfied!)
Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let’s face it, I love slime.)
All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I’m glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there’s a dirty old man!)
I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.
Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I’ve got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they’re trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,
Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I’m a market they can’t glut,
I don’t know what
Compares with smut.
Hip hip hooray!
Let’s hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don’t let them take it away!
Yeah! We agree on the media!!! :^D
Gotta go ... Saturday grocery shopping (ouch!) calls!
Catch up later.
And one who uses the term 'moralist' as an insult, shouldn't be throwing stones. Especially at the wrong target.
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.