Posted on 03/16/2012 10:56:03 PM PDT by Steelfish
And you know this is ONLY about kiddie porn how? And do you have any statistics proving it’s gotten worse under 0bama? Have prosecutions gone up or down during his administration. If they’ve gone up that would indicate he is doing something about it. There isn’t a person here who doesn’t think kiddie porn is abhorrent so your accusation that people here have “no problem” with kiddie porn is just hyperbole. Just like Santorum.
Cindie
Happy St. Patrick's Day! :)
Wake up, Folks. Which NATIONAL anti-porn law are you afraid of Santorum enforcing? Any takers? If not, grow up and stop being swayed by propaganda.
You’re right. When you ask them if they favor obscenity laws prohibiting public nudity, masturbation and consensual sex acts in their neighborhoods they become outraged and claim this is different because their children should not be subject to seeing these acts involuntarily. It is their “right” not to be subjected to these acts in public.
But somehow it is not their “right” not to be subject to same on the public broadcast system or the internet. Your theory that the collective IQ has diminshed a couple of sigmas might explain that little conundrum.
Then they go on to complain that you and I want to prevent them from doing what they want in their homes and bedrooms throwing around the statist epithet. How ridiculous can the argument get? Nobody gives a crap what they do in the privacy of their own home. As far as I’m concerned they can glue their eyes to images of adults engaging in sex acts until the sun stops shining. LOL, I mean really, how moronic can they get?
Here’s another beauty of an argument. By regulating the internet to require XXX websites to require ID to enter the site you have trampled on political speech. That’s my personal favorite.
A little less retarded is their state powers argument. Yes public obscenity laws should be as local as possible but small towns, big cities or large states have no capability to regulate the broadcast spectrum or the internet. Common sense and common decency must take a back seat to the libertines these days. It’s all right there in the Constitution and the DOI, the inalienable right to subject others to your sexual dalliances. Good grief.
By moralist I am referring to those who would legislate morality. You are definitely one of those.
I don’t make things up. Rick has talked about enforcing obscenity laws with respect to the internet.
The “bestiality” folks will protest./sarc
Hey trapped, name one law devoid of somebody's morality. Only very shallow thinking libertarians still quote the "you can't legislate morality" meme. All legislation is based on the legislators morality. The only question is whose morality gets legislated.
"Legislating morality" is a leftist canard that you have clearly fallen for. As I have stated above, if we didn't do that, there would be no laws against murder or sex with your child. There would be no law against drunk driving, assault, or child pornography, or rape.
If you're here to argue against legislating morality, go for it. I doubt, however, you'll get much support on an internet forum that supports morality as FR does.
Give it a try.....just not in a conversation with me. Because you can't win it and you'll probably embarrass yourself trying.
People care about the economy, jobs, inflation, gas prices, getting out of afghanitsan, taxes, etc, not having some politician in their home bossing them around.
Morality is the intentions and decisions a person both holds and makes prior to their actions.
What makes both Obama and Santorum so appalling is that they do want to legislate morality. Or in other words, they want to use government to change what you believe. (Obama... you vill believe in global warming and abortion for all! Santorum... you vill believe porn is Satan's work)
And that is patently offensive to any free man or woman.
When Obama gets re-elected and his tax rates go up by 50% he’ll be screaming ‘immoral laws’ at the top of his lungs. :-}
Child pornography and sex trafficking are crimes that are much more serious DO NOT fall under obscenity laws. The laws for the former are separate and are SO serious they should NOT get lost in a debate about obscenity. How dare you judge a person’s morals. Just because we’d prefer he’d talk about the economy because we have NOT ONE clue about his plan doesn’t mean we don’t think REAL crimes like child porn and sex trafficking shouldn’t be dealt with or aren’t already. Of course, if you can prove they’re not, please do so. And if Santorum is so stupid he doesn’t know the difference between adult pornography and trafficking or child pornography he doesn’t have the necessary common sense to be president.
Cindie
The reason Rick's stance on pornography is even being discussed is because msnbc and others of their ilk went to Rick's "Issues" page on his website and scrolled all the way to the very end, after his position papers on:
First 100 Days Economic Freedom Agenda
No More Leading from Behind for America
We Hold These Truths
Unleashing America's Domestic Energy
Bold Solutions for America’s Families
Immigration Reform: Securing And Strengthing America
ObamaRegs Versus Freedom
Santorum Record on Defending the Dignity of Every Human Life
Appointing Constitutionalist Justices and Judges Who Refuse to Legislate from the Bench
Restoring America's Greatness Through Educational Freedom And Opportunity
Defending 2nd Amendment Rights
Repeal and Replace ObamaCare with Patient-Centered Healthcare
Spending Cuts and Entitlements Reform
Made In America
Response To Iran
Executive Branch Actions
Champion of Faith & Families
Defender of the Taxpayer
Believer in American Exceptionalism
10 Steps to Promote Our Interests Around the World
Now, the fact that Rick has his stance on pornography listed after all of the above would suggest to any thinking person that it's not a priority or centerpiece of his campaign as msnbc would have you believe, and which you have clearly bought into. The fact that you claim to know nothing about his other stances when they are presented in the order I've listed above, suggests you're willing to rely on msnbc to do your thinking for you...which is truly very sad.
Laws exist to protect people from force/violence, and to enforce contracts made by free people.
Only nanny staters think legislation should protect people from themselves.
The problem is that he can’t do that. His campaign is built around social issues. Sure, he does have other issues in it... all cribbed from Newt’s positions last month.
He’s a one trick pony and the press know it.
Embarrass myself? ROFL. You’re embarassing yourself by equating laws that protect people from themselves to laws involving force and violence like murder and rape.
Please.
LOL. Tell it to the pro choice libertarians who are against agression except on defenseless babies.
How does a man masturbating on Main Street in your little town meet your force/violence/contract test?
Nobody is talking about a man masturbating in public. States and communities have laws in this regard. What Santorum is talking about is the Federal Government regulating the internet.
“What Santorum is talking about is the Federal Government regulating the internet.”
What will then be the difference between America and the dictatorships and theocracies?
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.