Santorum on Internet Porn (got your attention...didn't it?)

[GarMan]

So fuck Americans voters?

I need to know who to direct this explosive rage towards over just the passing thought that banning pornography is anywhere in the realm of a good idea in the United States of America.

Are you really falling for the nonsense? 

gul·li·ble/ˈgələbəl/
Adjective:   Easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
Synonyms: credulous - naive - trustful

[AUChizad]

Are you really falling for the nonsense? 

gul·li·ble/ˈgələbəl/
Adjective:   Easily persuaded to believe something; credulous.
Synonyms: credulous - naive - trustful

So if a politician says that he intends to make some whacked out crazy policy, the problem is actually with me for believing he might support that policy?

So, if a politician states that he will run on a platform of eradicating the white race, I should vote for him because it's so out there that it will never be implemented? He also has some vague fiscal policies that I think I might agree with, but anytime you get him in front of a mic he talks about this race war thing.

The thing is, I want to believe that making pornography illegal, or implementing a policy that "every home computer that comes into homes in America, has an easy to engage internet filter that blocks pornography" is so ridiculous and anti-liberty that it would never pass. But, obviously people support that shit, hence the applause, and the rabid Santorum supporters. That's more support than I ever saw for SOPA/PIPA, and they're still trying to push that piece of shit legislation through.

Why even entertain the idea? Why does this appeal to enough people that they want to say shit like this, even if they have no intention of making it a law?

You'd better believe shit like that will surface in the general election, and sane Americans will be disgusted by it.

[GH2001]

So if a politician says that he intends to make some whacked out crazy policy, the problem is actually with me for believing he might support that policy?

So, if a politician states that he will run on a platform of eradicating the white race, I should vote for him because it's so out there that it will never be implemented? He also has some vague fiscal policies that I think I might agree with, but anytime you get him in front of a mic he talks about this race war thing.

The thing is, I want to believe that making pornography illegal, or implementing a policy that "every home computer that comes into homes in America, has an easy to engage internet filter that blocks pornography" is so ridiculous and anti-liberty that it would never pass. But, obviously people support that shit, hence the applause, and the rabid Santorum supporters. That's more support than I ever saw for SOPA/PIPA, and they're still trying to push that piece of shit legislation through.

Why even entertain the idea? Why does this appeal to enough people that they want to say shit like this, even if they have no intention of making it a law?

You'd better believe shit like that will surface in the general election, and sane Americans will be disgusted by it.

Remember, they are ALL in campaign mode. I would look more at their past records and policies than I would campaign rhetoric. Doesn't mean that if they say it they won't do it, but in the context of this - Santorum is playing to his base here and it's pretty obvious. Just like Obama did with the Anti War and Anti Guantanamo rhetoric in 2008. The Afghan war is still ongoing and Guantanamo is still open for business. A lot of it you just have to look at the context of when and how they are saying things. Newt's gas ideas are good and would probably work but it is also playing to the fears of high gas prices. In this case, it's campaign rhetoric AND he would probably do it anyway - killing 2 birds. Something so extreme such as banning porn is obviously pure vote getting.

[Snaggletiger]

Were there not a ton of Amurikans saying ObamaCare is so outrageous and out there that it would never pass?  Amurikans will never let something like that be shoved up their collective asses.

[AUChizad]

Were there not a ton of Amurikans saying ObamaCare is so outrageous and out there that it would never pass?  Amurikans will never let something like that be shoved up their collective asses.

Exactly.

[GH2001]

Were there not a ton of Amurikans saying ObamaCare is so outrageous and out there that it would never pass?  Amurikans will never let something like that be shoved up their collective asses.

It was a rare 2 period where the extreme left had both houses and the white house. Not only 2 houses but a super majority in the senate making it filibuster proof. This rarely ever happens. Banning something that is a given right vs universal HC is somewhat apples and oranges.

[Snaggletiger]

It was a rare 2 period where the extreme left had both houses and the white house. Not only 2 houses but a super majority in the senate making it filibuster proof. This rarely ever happens. Banning something that is a given right vs universal HC is somewhat apples and oranges.

Not comparing the two issues at all.  Only saying the stars and planets could align one day and we're wondering how could a Republican controlled House and Senate be trying to shove this(Banning porn or whatever crazy idea) up our asses?

[GH2001]

Not comparing the two issues at all.  Only saying the stars and planets could align one day and we're wondering how could a Republican controlled House and Senate be trying to shove this(Banning porn or whatever crazy idea) up our asses?

I guess it could happen in theory. I just don't see a lot of people in Congress going for an all out ban on something that isn't illegal by nature, as compared to them going for something like Obamacare. There was a history there with Obamacare - of certain people that had been pushing it for years including Obama himself. Santorum has never really mentioned this before from a legislative perspective, never did as a Senator and just happens to bring it up while making the Bible belt and Heartland rounds. I just dont think that is a coincidence. I think there are a TON of the GOP that would not stand for it.

NOTE: With Obama, I never doubted his intent of wanting to make Obamacare a reality. With Santorum I am just not convinced this is true legislation he wants passed. The timing of this blurb is suspect, plus he hasn't made it a hot campaign "issue" as the dems did with Healthcare in 2008.

[AUJarhead]

I think my biggest issue with what is being said here, is that as a parent, it's ultimately up to me to monitor my children's internet use.  Romney's comments, while I agree to some extent, shouldn't be left up to the federal government to decide, it should be up to me as a concerned parent.  Do I want my kids surfing porn on the internet?  No, they should have to watch the fuzzy channel just like I did.  Are they going to do it?  Not while I have the only computer that they can use in the living room, where I can monitor their useage.

Should the computers be sent from the factory with "safe search" mode on?  No.  Someone who isn't in the same situation as me shouldn't have to adjust their settings, because parents want to shield their kids somewhat.

[AUChizad]

I think my biggest issue with what is being said here, is that as a parent, it's ultimately up to me to monitor my children's internet use.  Romney's comments, while I agree to some extent, shouldn't be left up to the federal government to decide, it should be up to me as a concerned parent.  Do I want my kids surfing porn on the internet?  No, they should have to watch the fuzzy channel just like I did.  Are they going to do it?  Not while I have the only computer that they can use in the living room, where I can monitor their useage.

Should the computers be sent from the factory with "safe search" mode on?  No.  Someone who isn't in the same situation as me shouldn't have to adjust their settings, because parents want to shield their kids somewhat.

I'm all for a business innovating an effective pornography filter that they can buy if they want pornography impossible to reach from their home.

Great.

The government censoring the internet like China is so ridiculous, I can't believe we're actually discussing it.

[GH2001]

I'm all for a business innovating an effective pornography filter that they can buy if they want pornography impossible to reach from their home.

Great.

The government censoring the internet like China is so ridiculous, I can't believe we're actually discussing it.

In his defense slightly, I didn't actually see any mention of enforcing any new laws to prohibit anything. I saw the mention of enforcing already existing laws regarding the distribution of material. That is a little different. The rest of the fodder in the article are quotes from other people, not him.

And guess when Santorum made the comments and where? March 13th, in Miss and Alabama.

[Snaggletiger]

I want a timed porn filter that goes off after the kid and Mama have gone to bed and I've been up drinking heavily and stumbling around the house...and I've grabbed a jumbo sized bag of Cheeto's and a bottle of KY lu......wait, I mean....damn that Santorum.

[AUJarhead]

I'm all for a business innovating an effective pornography filter that they can buy if they want pornography impossible to reach from their home.

Absolutely agree 100%.

As a parent, I should be able to use such a product to keep my kids from seeing it.  As a non-parent, you shouldn't be force to use said product.

[GarMan]

So if a politician says that he intends to make some whacked out crazy policy, the problem is actually with me for believing he might support that policy?

So, if a politician states that he will run on a platform of eradicating the white race, I should vote for him because it's so out there that it will never be implemented? He also has some vague fiscal policies that I think I might agree with, but anytime you get him in front of a mic he talks about this race war thing.

The thing is, I want to believe that making pornography illegal, or implementing a policy that "every home computer that comes into homes in America, has an easy to engage internet filter that blocks pornography" is so ridiculous and anti-liberty that it would never pass. But, obviously people support that shit, hence the applause, and the rabid Santorum supporters. That's more support than I ever saw for SOPA/PIPA, and they're still trying to push that piece of shit legislation through.

Why even entertain the idea? Why does this appeal to enough people that they want to say shit like this, even if they have no intention of making it a law?

You'd better believe shit like that will surface in the general election, and sane Americans will be disgusted by it.

He's merely appealing to a constituency group.  Whether you agree with his message or not, you're falling for something that most of us know will essentially go nowhere.  And, I disagree regarding the anti-SOPA/PIPA movement.  That grew very strong, very quickly, and it was more of a threat than this anti-porn movement.  And, as far as I understand it, this anti-porn movement is really just an enforcement of the obscenity laws that already exist. 

[GarMan]

Were there not a ton of Amurikans saying ObamaCare is so outrageous and out there that it would never pass?  Amurikans will never let something like that be shoved up their collective asses. 

Damn...  Have to get caught up...

What was eventually passed under ObamaCare, even though nobody had time to read it, is nowhere near as outrageous as what was originally proposed.  This is a watered-down version of what they originally wanted. 

[AUChizad]

What was eventually passed under ObamaCare, even though nobody had time to read it, is nowhere near as outrageous as what was originally proposed.  This is a watered-down version of what they originally wanted.

Bookmarked.

[GarMan]

I guess it could happen in theory. I just don't see a lot of people in Congress going for an all out ban on something that isn't illegal by nature, as compared to them going for something like Obamacare. There was a history there with Obamacare - of certain people that had been pushing it for years including Obama himself. Santorum has never really mentioned this before from a legislative perspective, never did as a Senator and just happens to bring it up while making the Bible belt and Heartland rounds. I just dont think that is a coincidence. I think there are a TON of the GOP that would not stand for it.

NOTE: With Obama, I never doubted his intent of wanting to make Obamacare a reality. With Santorum I am just not convinced this is true legislation he wants passed. The timing of this blurb is suspect, plus he hasn't made it a hot campaign "issue" as the dems did with Healthcare in 2008.

That's exactly it.  This anti-porn movement isn't going to get massive support from the GOP, even if the Republicans are successful in taking/keeping both houses.  This is just worthless noise to appease a constituency. 

[GarMan]

Bookmarked.

Good for you...  Even Harry Reid eventually agreed that the healthcare bill was a flaming piece of shit, but it is not the government-control-of-everything-single-payer legislation that they had threatened.  Now that the truth of some of this is coming out, it's only a matter of time before it's challenged to pieces or completely repealed. 

Obscenity laws have already gone to the Supreme Court, and they exist today. 

[AUJarhead]

Now that the truth of some of this is coming out, it's only a matter of time before it's challenged to pieces or completely repealed. 

You mean like this:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/cbo-report-costs-of-obamas-health-care-program-balloon-by-1-7-trillion/

A Congressional Budget Office report shows that the cost of implementing President Obama’s health care overhaul will reach $2.6 trillion over a ten-year period, a dramatic increase from the White House’s original estimate.

In 2009, Obama stated that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion over ten years.” The CBO’s original ten-year numbers weren’t that far off, but critics of the health care bill noted then that the cost would be much greater once projections accounted for its full implementation.

Democrats pushed the back-loaded bill into law in 2010, although it isn’t scheduled to be fully implemented until 2014.

[dallaswareagle]

Absolutely agree 100%.

As a parent, I should be able to use such a product to keep my kids from seeing it.  As a non-parent, you shouldn't be force to use said product.

I am a non-parent: