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 ...
If there is revival in America, it will come from p2p contact or from the church pews, it will not come from government imposed morality.
So what should he do, ignore the federal law? Comstock is an old fuddy duddy law, so who cares?
As people have been saying here, the law is *already on the books*. It just hasn’t been enforced.
We can argue about the best way to enforce it. And yeah, in this climate, of course there is the danger of encroaching federal power. But what’s the alternative? Let the moral sewer continue in *direct violation of federal law*??
Anyway, as everyone else has been saying here, liberty does NOT mean libertinism. It didn’t in the Founding Fathers’ day and it doesn’t now.
Again, Reading Comprehension FAIL
Go back and read the Santorum’s ACTUAL statement which is post #33.
Santorum said he will do (2) things.
First, he will ENFORCE the laws ALREADY on the books. (Please show me where he said anything about enacting any new laws or depriving anyone/states of their rights).
Second, he will APPOINT and ATTORNEY GENERAL that actually RESPECTS the rule of law and will enforce laws ALREADY on the books.
Do you care about illegal immigration laws already on the books but being ignored by Holder/Obama? What about their failure to enforce DOMA? This is what Rick is saying will be corrected in his administration.
Typical false choice argument. You leave liberty out of the question and present the ridiculously shallow analysis that there are "social" issues and "economic" issues only. Wrong x a thousand.
This leads you to a faulty equation and a faulty result. You are right that the moral problems contribute greatly to the economic problems, but to indicate that they are the only, or even the greatest, problem is not true. I would say that our energy policy right now is a bigger problem than the moral problem with our economy and with our liberty. But, I grant you the moral decay is tied to the economy no doubt.
Where you go wrong is the boneheaded notion that electing a moralist President will do anything about it. It won't. Besides, that is not the role of President. That is not the role of government. It just is not. Sorry to burst your bubble of self righteousness.
The role of government is to contain itself to allow liberty, and in that liberty we can win the notion of a moral country in a free arena of ideas. A theocracy is doomed to failure, first in election and second in execution.
He hasn’;t said he would do this ,
OH FFS I’m sick and tired of many on our side reading a left article or or even article and thinking it was the truth.
HE NEVER SAID HE WOULD , For crying out loud to some of you get a grip.
I;m no fan of him but it seems we have as many on our side who are just as bad as the left and the idiots out there who vote for what they do not know.
HE NEVER SAID HE WOULD DO THIS
This is becoming embarrassing that we have our side jumping to conclusions as much as the left now.
And people wonder why conservative women aren’t opposed to this guy?
"I have grandchildren that access the web. Ive seen them accidentally bring up xxx pr0n. Think about what that says for the entire nation.
You do not have to wait for St Rick and government to save your grandchildren.
You can do something.
First hit on Google search "free home internet filter":
K9 Web Protection from Blue Coat
Blue Coat is a provider of corporate Internet security software.
More info:
CNET Editors' review: K9 Web Protection
If parents can afford to provide their children Internet access, they can afford to monitor and protect that access.
I cannot believe how many on here are thinking that he said he would do this and jumping to conclusions.
I voted for Newt and would do again but this crap on our side as to stop.
And I am sorry that you need sweater vest in the White House to keep you from doing that.
And I am sorry you think that is the role of President.
And I am sorry you think that anyone who is adult enough to understand that this is not the role of government is in favor of people doing that.
Frankly, I am sorry to engage such a shallow person. I won’t do it again.
Uhh, yes Santorum has said he would do this. Apparently you have reading comprehension issues:
http://www.ricksantorum.com/enforcing-laws-against-illegal-pornography
Yep - it's great he's a Christian, but that seems to be his whole platform. At least when he's not stealing Newt's ideas and lines in an attempt to sound like a conservative Presidential candidate. If he really understood and believed in the Bible, he wouldn't be trying to effect "Christian" changes under the aegis of the power of the office. Jesus told us "resist not evil" and I believe it's because humans mortals can't win that battle -it's His job and our job as Christians is to carry the Word. Rick's attempt to make his religion the driving force of his campaign is a sure sign that he's doomed to failure if he becomes our nominee.
perhaps thats because 96% of his supporters on this site thinks he would and LIKE THAT HE WOULD.....ever think of that?
ROFL Santorum is a disaster! No wonder Democrats are organizing people to cross over and vote for him in our primaries! Internet regulation here we come! Weeeeeeee!
Every President brings his morality with him to the office. Right now we are getting Obama’s. Ronald Reagan had his Pornography Commission- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pornography_movement_in_the_United_States#Meese_Commission_under_Reagan
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.