Santorum's "war on porn"

[Thumb]

KAWDUP: This was about Porn, the Supreme Court and the Constitution say Porn is legal and protected under the 1st Amendment.

So what I was getting at was when someone like Santorum says he will use the Federal Government (US Justice Dept.) to prosecute producers of pornography, that's a place the Government has no business.

I'm not going to discuss parallels or tangents about what should or should not be controlled by the government in this thread other than the topic at hand.


And as far as what Mitch said, I agree, it's too bad kids can access porn on the internet so easily, but a great majority of the adult industry supports child protection features, and I believe the ultimate responsibility lies with the parents, they should install filters, and monitor what their children do online.

 

[jimrice]

Typical Santorum. Any progress he makes while talking about the economy, taxes or other important shit is always overshadowed by the social nonsense he's really passionate about.

 

[Monster]

Typical Santorum. Any progress he makes while talking about the economy, taxes or other important shit is always overshadowed by the religious nonsense he's really passionate about.

fixed.

 

[lionsFTW]

Mitch[/color]]I don't look at Porn, never had - well outside the one time when I was 20. The good 'Ole days, porn whisky and chick named Dave. Ironically that's the last time I've drank. I don't have a problem with anyone that does but I also don't have a problem with someone, the feds trying to clean the internet. Because it doesn't just effect adults but anyone who uses the internet, young kids.

Only problem with this logic is it leads to an incredibly slippery slope.

Its not that porn companies are marketing to young kids like the tobacco companies do. Its actually the complete opposite as they know their product is so vilified by a select minority that if its ever proven then game over, so they actually are willing to go out of their way to prevent this.

But because its the internet what ends up happening is that through the freedom and sharing of information, a purchased product by one single individual can then get passed to every other person who wishes to consume said product.

Now here lies the problem. Who's the end all be all final verdict on what is questionable material? The president? Groups like Focus on the Family or P.E.T.A? The pope? His moral views don't reflect mine. Hes a man the same as me, what makes his choices any better than mine? Before you know it every piece of questionable material that doesn't sit well with one particular individual or small group is now deemed unfit for the entire viewing population of the internet which is simply not right!

One person may think its completely fine to watch two consenting individuals perform sexual acts while another may think something like a Marilyn Manson song is completely overboard.

The internet is a remarkable place where any and everyone can get together and share ideas, views and content without filter. If you wish to not absorb said content, don't! If you wish for your family or children to not view it, don't! Its really that simple. Parents need to except the responsibility that this is the world we live in and if there are certain things out there you wouldn't like your offspring to view its your responsibility, not the federal gov's, to prevent them from viewing it.

/rant

 

[tinselwolverine]

There wasn't internet porn when I was a kid.

But I was sneaking Playboy and Penthouse and Hustler into my room when I was around 12 or 13.

And so was pretty much every other guy at that age.

There was a time in the course of human hisory when that was about the age - or maybe just a little bit older - that parents were matching one of their kids up with the kid of another pair of parents for nupitals.

Edit: I think in SHAKESPEAREAN REFERENSE ALERT - Romeo and Juliet - SHAKESPEARIAN REFERENCE ALERT
Juliet was right around 14 years old.

 

[Michchamp]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

Edit: I think in SHAKESPEAREAN REFERENSE ALERT - Romeo and Juliet - SHAKESPEARIAN REFERENCE ALERT
Juliet was right around 14 years old.

the other guy would've just dropped the appropriate shakespearean quote there. The mere reference to it isn't very poetic. the Bard himself would shake his head in disapproval.

 

[tinselwolverine]

TinselWolverine[/color]]

Edit: I think in SHAKESPEAREAN REFERENSE ALERT - Romeo and Juliet - SHAKESPEARIAN REFERENCE ALERT
Juliet was right around 14 years old.

the other guy would've just dropped the appropriate shakespearean quote there. The mere reference to it isn't very poetic. the Bard himself would shake his head in disapproval.

How sloppy of me.

Romeo and Juliet, 1.2

PARIS
Of honourable reckoning are you both;
And pity 'tis you lived at odds so long.
But now, my lord, what say you to my suit?

CAPULET
But saying o'er what I have said before:
My child is yet a stranger in the world;
She hath not seen the change of fourteen years,
Let two more summers wither in their pride,
Ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.

PARIS
Younger than she are happy mothers made.

CAPULET
And too soon marr'd are those so early made.
The earth hath swallow'd all my hopes but she,
She is the hopeful lady of my earth:
But woo her, gentle Paris, get her heart,
My will to her consent is but a part;
An she agree, within her scope of choice
Lies my consent and fair according voice.

 

[Michchamp]

ha ha much better

 

[tinselwolverine]

ha ha much better

Whew...that's a relief...

 

[KAWDUP]

KAWDUP: This was about Porn, the Supreme Court and the Constitution say Porn is legal and protected under the 1st Amendment.

I'm not going to discuss parallels or tangents about what should or should not be controlled by the government in this thread other than the topic at hand.

Ha. I chuckle with responses like this. You always only post about the the topic at hand? Riiight. Give me a break.

Nice dodge of the question though.

It is funny to me, how when I was talking about the 6-year old having their lunch taken away, I don't remember anyone talking about that narrow instance and agreeing what a travesty that was. My point in this thread is completely valid. Intrusion into what I give my child to eat by the government. That is EXACTLY the same principle. So quit your lecturing.

No one on this board that I have seen posting in this thread supports kiddie porn as an expression of free speech. They should be locked up for the rest of their life. DUH!

Bringing in the Constitution when it suits your argument - now that is weak.

Answer - or don't answer, I don't care, but get that weak holier than thou crap out of here.

 

[Thumb]

KAWDUP: This was about Porn, the Supreme Court and the Constitution say Porn is legal and protected under the 1st Amendment.

I'm not going to discuss parallels or tangents about what should or should not be controlled by the government in this thread other than the topic at hand.

Ha. I chuckle with responses like this. You always only post about the the topic at hand? Riiight. Give me a break.

Nice dodge of the question though.

It is funny to me, how when I was talking about the 6-year old having their lunch taken away, I don't remember anyone talking about that narrow instance and agreeing what a travesty that was. My point in this thread is completely valid. Intrusion into what I give my child to eat by the government. That is EXACTLY the same principle. So quit your lecturing.

No one on this board that I have seen posting in this thread supports kiddie porn as an expression of free speech. They should be locked up for the rest of their life. DUH!

Bringing in the Constitution when it suits your argument - now that is weak.

Answer - or don't answer, I don't care, but get that weak holier than thou crap out of here.

First off, quit reading more into a post than is there, damn you must really be into conspiracy theories.

I'm not doing holier than thou crap.

You suggested in your first reply to me that I was against the Feds involvement in this but okay with them being involved in other stuff, I rebuked you so you said okay, tell me what you think is okay.

My response was simply to inform you I was not going to go into that, I was talking only about the topic we were on.

I'm not saying I don't go off topic, I'm not saying you shouldn't, I was only saying I was not going to get into a whole series of debates and posts about what the Fed. Government should have a say in or not, I just was simply not interested in that.

And saying I use the constitution only when it suits me? Show me some basis for using this load of hot air statement, and stop trying to manufacture an argument where there is not one.

And as far as your thread about the kid, the Federal Government did not take her lunch away, the SCHOOL did.

Here is a quote from the article link YOU posted : "The assistant superintendent of the school system says he agrees that the lunch was healthy, but he says it was missing milk, a key part of what is considered to be a healthy meal under state guidelines.".

You later went on to insist it was because of USDA guidelines, read guidelines, not LAWS.

You were/are attempting to make an argument about the Federal Governments intrusion where there is not one to be made.

All I can tell you KAWDUP, is I'm not doing any holier than thou shit, I'm just not interested at this time in running off on the parallels and tangents you want to go on, sorry to disappoint you.

 

[KAWDUP]

This comment is valid. Federal intrusion into your personal life stops at porn for you. I get it. Stay away from your porn. I won't go near it.

Once you have agreement on that topic, then you are done here?

Good for you. You not wanting to talk about anything else, of couse, means nothing. The valid parallel is there no matter how bad you want to dodge the issue.

I never said you had to answer. I asked you a question. Answer it or don't. Once again - I don't care, but you obviously have something to say or you wouldn't keep answering.

 

[Thumb]

I didn't say Federal intrusion stops at porn for me, (once again, you're reading tea leaves that are not there) I just said that's all I was willing to discuss in this thread, maybe if someone makes a different thread, I'll express more opinions about it.

But for now, I just choose not to.

If you don't care whether I do or not, this should be the end of it.

 

[mhughes0021]

this entire conversation is ridiculous. Santorum is a fag....thats all anyone needs to know.

 

[lions2011]

Rooster wants your porn....lol

 

[Michchamp]

what kind of porn does Santorum look at?

Probably some weird Vatican-approved stuff. Official porn of the Catholic church or whatever... starring Mel Gibson.

 

[tinselwolverine]

what kind of porn does Santorum look at?

Probably some weird Vatican-approved stuff. Official porn of the Catholic church or whatever... starring Mel Gibson.

With Madonna.

I also don't want the Federal Government telling me what kind of toothpaste or anti-perspirant to use.

 

[turok]

If you fellow "libs" really want to get into it, try out your trolling skilz and Constitutional/legislative/political knowledge by becoming a member of the Red State or Townhall websites, like I have often done in the past. Got "zotted" waay too quickly on the Freak Republic, ~6 years ago, and before I could do any damage there by posing as a "Reagan Democrat"...haha!!

Promised myself that I would try to stay away from discussing politics on this Proboards website, so I try to avoid reading many threads here about it. Still maintain two gmail addys, one for news, updates and info from each party, b/c I believe in the old adage of keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer.

 

[jimrice]

Santorum can still keep a straight face when he says he wants to reduce the size of government. Gotta love 90's era Republican big government conservatives.

 

[tinselwolverine]

If you fellow "libs" really want to get into it, try out your trolling skilz and Constitutional/legislative/political knowledge by becoming a member of the Red State or Townhall websites, like I have often done in the past. Got "zotted" waay too quickly on the Freak Republic, ~6 years ago, and before I could do any damage there by posing as a "Reagan Democrat"...haha!!

Promised myself that I would try to stay away from discussing politics on this Proboards website, so I try to avoid reading many threads here about it. Still maintain two gmail addys, one for news, updates and info from each party, b/c I believe in the old adage of keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer.

You should have kept your promise to yourself.