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 ...
I'm not one of those people.
And your 'shock' would be more believable if you haven't been showing up on every Santorum thread, picking up whatever line of attack his critics and the media lay out for you.
Read through the whole thread Catb. It is hilarious. Frightening, but hilarious.
Hey. Maybe I should have read the entire thread, too.
I can’t believe the Rick supporters of how far they go in
defending what he meant (and it's always suppose to be a good thing)
“And, unfortunately, Santorum is a rehash of Mike Huckabee. IE: only conservative on the social front and not in any other aspect.”
I am NOT an apologist for Rick Santorum. However, what you wrote is just not correct. Santorum was standing up against Islamic radicalism from the get go. He urged President Bush to not wrongly call it a war on terrorism, but instead on Islamists. Santorum is most definitely a national security conservative and not afraid of being politcally incorrect to be so. I know folks here fear Sharia law. Santorum is steadfast in his opposition to that. In fact, in dealing with the Radical Islamic threats to the country....I think he would be exceptionally good.
However, I still agree that Newt is the most balanced and would best be pitted against Mr. Obama. However, once again...you are stooping to insulting social conservatives. You need us. If you want our votes, you have to somewhat cater to our issues. EVERYONE, to include Santorum, knows that the economy is of prime concern. That is a no-brainer. You accomplish NOTHING by putting Santorum down for his social concerns. You just push more social conservatives, like myself, to support him. The bashing Mike Huckabee got on this forum in 2008 is still a bad taste in my mouth. Had Sarah Palin not come on the scene, I was ready to wash my hands of “other than social” conservatives.
It's very unfortunate to see some conservatives so quick to want to use the boot of the state to solve a perceived problem in society. I've often lamented the fact that social conservatives almost always wish to use government as a weapon of first resort, which I don't believe is a philosophy consistent with respect for liberty.
I think Saintorum doesn’t talk much about many of those issues, because he doesn’t have a clue on how to deal with them.
* President Newt Gingrich-”Our beloved republic deserves nothing less.”
“Debating the relative advantages and disadvantages - vetting - of the candidates is a good thing, but thats not whats happening on most of these threads. Whats happening now is not healthy.”
Amen! That is what I’m trying to make those here understand. This war between the two camps is out of control and just hurting the future of the GOP. Trashing Santorum for being himself is just foolish. The same is true of trashing Newt for being himself. They are what they are. At least they aren’t being phoney.
Santorum joined forces with Lieberman and Hillary on a study as to how watching tv effects children.
Check it out..Senators Propose Redundant Media Research Study
(Washington, D.C.) - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today criticized Senators Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) for reintroducing the Children and Media Research Advancement Act (CAMRA), which will set up a $90 million program to research what countless other studies have already documented the effects of television viewing and other media on children. CAGW named Sen. Lieberman Porker of the Month when he introduced the same legislation in August, 2004.
“This proposal is just one expensive rerun,” CAGW President Tom Schatz said. “For decades this issue has been studied to death, always yielding the same results. Calling for yet another taxpayer-funded study belittles the ability of parents to use common sense in deciding what shows are appropriate for their children.”
1. Santorum joined Sen Hillary Clinton, Sen Lieberman, Sam Brownback in introducing the CHILDREN AND MEDIA REASEARCH ADVANCEMENT ACT which allocated a 90 MILLION dollar program to research the effects that watching tv has on children. This was a call for ANOTHER taxpayer funded study the thinks the govt knows better than parents on what is appropriate for their children to view.
http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2005/senators-propose-redundant.html
“More in line with what they’re talking about on MSNBC.”
I wouldn’t know, that channel isn’t on my TV and it’s just as well - wouldn’t watch it anyway, except maybe for laughs.
In my opinion, social conservatism should be about trying to keep the left from using government power to destroy traditional values in this country.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh Pleeze! I’ve been surfing the net all the way back when it was the Usenet. And I surf a lot of topics, some rather strange topics at that on my home computer with no search restrictions or parental filters in place and I also use the web at work for research related to my job on a daily basis. And never, never in the last 20 years+ have I ever “accidently” brought up any xxx pr0n sites. And most xxx pr0n sites require a credit card in order to access their material.
I recall a few years ago my great nephew at the age of 13, got caught by his mother web surfing for “Girls Gone Wild”. His defense was “Yes, I searched for “Girls Gone Wild” but I didn’t see any because I don’t have a credit card.” LOL!
You mean the Republican Democratic National parties-a party of one.
As a Club for Growth type of Republican, what I suspect from Social Conservatives is that on the economic issues they would feel comfortable with the Democrat Party of the New Deal. What I fear the most, is a Leftist who sees the social issues in the same light as Santorum. This Democrat would be impossible to beat in today’s climate.
“I’m quite shocked at how eagerly some are to accept government control as ‘conservative’.”
I for one am not an anarchist. I realize that all government control is not intrinsically evil. Like I have stated, that line of reasoning is just libertarian/libertine ideology.....which is NOT conservative. Whether you want to accept it or not, pornography is a blight on mankind and NOTHING good has ever come from it. So, getting upset that a candidate wants to put some controls on it does not equate to “Big Brother.” Once again that is Ron Paul libertarian thinking.
Well, he is a big government guy... Mr. Bridge to Nowhere. I do not believe he will ever reside in the White House.
This is such a miserable year, yet it never had to be....
Hey genius, you do know that your boy Newt has declared exactly the same thing, don’t you?
You are right, it is not Conservative, in the 19th Century European sense of the word. A 21st Century American Conservative is more correctly a Classical Liberal. A Conservative under its true definition, would have been a strong supporter of absolute monarchy and a strong Catholic Church. Like a Carlist during the Spanish Civil War. So you see why maybe some Classical Liberals might have a problem with Santorum. As a true believer in the American Tradition I would have less problem with Mormonism than extreme Catholicism, from an American perspective.
“Whether you want to accept it or not, pornography is a blight on mankind and NOTHING good has ever come from it.”
If the government regulates the internet how long do you think it would be before they deem opposition to them as “a blight on mankind that nothing good can come from”?
And this is why he would lose the election.
steve86 says:
If so then this demonstrates the nation is beyond saving. Libertine being substituted for liberty is a real clue. Seems the nation in its laudable form lasted about 200 years.
No, what it says is that people don't want the government putting it's brand of moral-ism into laws. We have enough nanny state laws as it is. Besides, the SCOTUS has already ruled porn is legal. Fat chance he has to stop it. All he is going to do is piss off a bunch of freedom loving conservatives. This is a perfect example of government intrusion into the lives of the people.
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?
I assume you support all of the above and oppose government intrusion. Is that correct?
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.