Santorum Pledges Pornography Blackout Using Lawsuits & SOPA-style ISP Filtering(dailycaller.com)
dailycaller.com
Santorum Pledges Pornography Blackout Using Lawsuits & SOPA-style ISP Filtering
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/vigorous-santorum-crackdown-may-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/
168 comments
> If he somehow wins the nomination, expect him to quietly forget half of these crazy promises. If he loses, his political career is over. So he has to go pretty crazy.
Here's the real backstory.
You have Santorum mixed up with Romney. Santorum really believes all this stuff, he isn't just saying it to get elected. He is about as puritanical in his beliefs as you can get. While I respect him for being so open and being who he is, I frankly find it frightening that he is winning primaries.
Here's the real backstory.
You have Santorum mixed up with Romney. Santorum really believes all this stuff, he isn't just saying it to get elected. He is about as puritanical in his beliefs as you can get. While I respect him for being so open and being who he is, I frankly find it frightening that he is winning primaries.
> Santorum really believes all this stuff
Maybe this is just being pedantic, but: what about his beliefs on higher education? The man has denigrated the idea of pursuing education beyond high school, yet he has more degrees than the current president. That just seems like pandering to me.
Maybe this is just being pedantic, but: what about his beliefs on higher education? The man has denigrated the idea of pursuing education beyond high school, yet he has more degrees than the current president. That just seems like pandering to me.
He home schools his kids, which is inline with what he is stating are his current beliefs.
As for the number of degrees, excess can breed contempt. Also, college is a great place to have lots of sex and be exposed to tons of secular ideas.
As for the number of degrees, excess can breed contempt. Also, college is a great place to have lots of sex and be exposed to tons of secular ideas.
Santorum has an extra one-year MBA degree. Both had Bachelor of Arts, both had Juris Doctor (a law degree).
Here's the scorecard for sport fans:
Santorum: BA (Hons) from UPenn; a one year MBA from University of Pittsburgh. Katz.; J.D. (Hons) from Dickinson School of Law
Obama: BA, Columbia University; J.D. (Magna cum laude) from Harvard Law
Here's the scorecard for sport fans:
Santorum: BA (Hons) from UPenn; a one year MBA from University of Pittsburgh. Katz.; J.D. (Hons) from Dickinson School of Law
Obama: BA, Columbia University; J.D. (Magna cum laude) from Harvard Law
Sounds like you are trying to arrive to predefined conclusion. Given the sorry state of public education, where schools graduate illiterate people unable to read their own diploma, if homeschooling is a sign of something it is a sign of deep commitment to the child's education. The second argument is even weaker - it sounds like if he had a lot of degrees, he'd be against education, and if he had none, he'd be against education. Solid argument needs more than that. You can see in parallel branch I am very far from being fan of Santorum, however disliking him does not mean getting to his level and starting to use prejudices instead of solid argument.
> if homeschooling is a sign of something it is a sign of deep commitment to the child's education.
Commitment to what aspect, though? Actual educational and personal development or complete indoctrination in a bubble where no outside ideas can penetrate?
My point is that it's an ambiguous indicator, and can honestly be used by both sides until we know details about the homeschooling in question.
Commitment to what aspect, though? Actual educational and personal development or complete indoctrination in a bubble where no outside ideas can penetrate?
My point is that it's an ambiguous indicator, and can honestly be used by both sides until we know details about the homeschooling in question.
What's "actual" education? One's personal opinion can differ. However, education and indoctrination are not mutually exclusive. The debate about mentioning creationism in schools shows that both sides see the school as the indoctrination vehicle - otherwise describing the existence of the creationist theories, which is - the existence of the theories, of course - a scientific fact would not be controversial, but there's more to it than just that, right? And educational institutions themselves are deeply political - D/R ratio in some academic disciplines is 30/1, some institutions are completely ideologically monocultural, and teacher's union NEA is 6th biggest political donor, donating almost exclusively to one party. There are also numerous documented cases of teachers involving pupils into political activities for the causes of their choosing. So it would be very hard to find an education venue where indoctrination would not take place.
The whole point of the homeschooling (one of) is that people choose what is actual education for them, not for somebody else. Of course, you or I may not like their choice, but why should they care?
The whole point of the homeschooling (one of) is that people choose what is actual education for them, not for somebody else. Of course, you or I may not like their choice, but why should they care?
> What's "actual" education? One's personal opinion can differ.
A good education is one that reflects reality. If your opinion of what reality is differs from mine, you're welcome to show me wrong using experiments. Otherwise, you are wrong and are not likely to be a good educator.
> The debate about mentioning creationism in schools shows that both sides see the school as the indoctrination vehicle
Not to the extent you seem to think: One side has facts on its side, whereas the other does not. If you can't see any asymmetry there I refuse to try to help you.
> Of course, you or I may not like their choice, but why should they care?
Because I have to live with the laws they have the political clout to force through Congress. I have to deal with the fact they have just as much political clout as I do and no idea why the tides come in or why trickle-down economics is a terrible idea or why banning abortions doesn't magically make everyone into someone who can raise a child in a reasonable fashion.
A good education is one that reflects reality. If your opinion of what reality is differs from mine, you're welcome to show me wrong using experiments. Otherwise, you are wrong and are not likely to be a good educator.
> The debate about mentioning creationism in schools shows that both sides see the school as the indoctrination vehicle
Not to the extent you seem to think: One side has facts on its side, whereas the other does not. If you can't see any asymmetry there I refuse to try to help you.
> Of course, you or I may not like their choice, but why should they care?
Because I have to live with the laws they have the political clout to force through Congress. I have to deal with the fact they have just as much political clout as I do and no idea why the tides come in or why trickle-down economics is a terrible idea or why banning abortions doesn't magically make everyone into someone who can raise a child in a reasonable fashion.
I am no Santorum fan, but you should at least reflect what he said accurately. He stated not every one should be encouraged to go to university for their chosen career path. i.e. plumbers should not feel pressure to get a BA. This concept is not entirely wrong and is embraced by very liberal cultures in Europe. US culture has a misguided impression that everyone has to go to university to be successful in life.
Errr, no. He actually said that 'satan' has taken over academics, and other such nonsense.
prooflink with a quote? He talked a bunch about Satan and about how corrupt some institutions are (one can easily find it by searching for satana+santorum+academics), but I can't find a quote where he explicitly says Satan has taken over academics.
I concur, Santorum is a sincere candidate compared to Romney. Hitler was sincere too. Sincerity is an overrated virtue.....
Aside from the ridiculously crass comparison to Hitler, you are patently wrong.
Hitler was a liar to the core. He framed the Invasion of Poland as a 'defensive war' which he convinced many Germans into believe Poland was actually invading Germany!
He spun deceptions regularly and was known for his ability to convince or make others look the other way while he planned military actions and genocide. Just because he was outspoken about his hate for the Jewish people does not at all make him 'sincere'.
Hitler was a liar to the core. He framed the Invasion of Poland as a 'defensive war' which he convinced many Germans into believe Poland was actually invading Germany!
He spun deceptions regularly and was known for his ability to convince or make others look the other way while he planned military actions and genocide. Just because he was outspoken about his hate for the Jewish people does not at all make him 'sincere'.
I did not say sincerity is not a virtue, I said it is overrated. I don't think Santorum is even close to being Hitler, I believe he is overall an honest man who believes that he will do good for the country. My problem with him is that he is so certain with his beliefs. He's too dogmatic for my taste. “The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their intentions” – Milton Friedman
Being sincere doesn't mean to always tell the truth. Lies can be justified as a means to achieve a goal that is sincerely believed to be for the greater good.
That's what makes these people dangerous. If they had an obsession with telling the truth, they would be easy to defeat, because even though many people share some of their beliefs, very few people share the priorities of true fanatics.
That's what makes these people dangerous. If they had an obsession with telling the truth, they would be easy to defeat, because even though many people share some of their beliefs, very few people share the priorities of true fanatics.
Yeah you're right. I don't think Hitler was sincere when he negotiated with Neville Chamberlain on the annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. No one was listening to Churchill who has been warning for years about Hitler. Who would listen to a drunk discredited politician? This time pragmatism failed.
I'm sure he is sincere, but a professional politician does not run his mouth, sincerely or insincerely, without a purpose behind doing so. Santorum isn't Ron Paul, Alan Keyes, Dennis Kucinich, or Sarah Palin--he knows exactly what he's doing.
Alas, Rick Santorum ("Putting the 'No' in 'Nuance' since 1991") will be with us long after he's turned over the hole cards of his busted straight of a Presidential bid.
Look at the careers of Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Rob Reich, et cetera et cetera ad absurdum. Once a politician discovers some capacity to generate an audience, they go on raising money ($ for consultant buddies), selling books (royalties), speaking (speaker fees) . . . . No one expects these people to ever affect anything. But they can reliably, bankably, generate attention. Maybe they start out trying to influence opinion, but over time the audience retention imperative drives that to the background.
That's one reason why this sort is so reliably brain-dead. Saying something their audience doesn't expect to hear subjects said audience to the pain of unguided thought; do this too often and that audience withers, because they're tuning in for validation of opinion, not formation of new opinion.
A general campaign introduces Santorum to zero marginal conversative audience and takes up valuable time. If he won the nomination, his first move would be to demand a recount.
[EDIT: Yes, I meant Jon Stewart. I regard him and Limbaugh as a species of politician -- they make their living motivating political activity of a particular bent. They didn't build their audiences via electoral politics, but once built their audience relationship / maintenance dynamics are very similar to the others named.]
Look at the careers of Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jon Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Rob Reich, et cetera et cetera ad absurdum. Once a politician discovers some capacity to generate an audience, they go on raising money ($ for consultant buddies), selling books (royalties), speaking (speaker fees) . . . . No one expects these people to ever affect anything. But they can reliably, bankably, generate attention. Maybe they start out trying to influence opinion, but over time the audience retention imperative drives that to the background.
That's one reason why this sort is so reliably brain-dead. Saying something their audience doesn't expect to hear subjects said audience to the pain of unguided thought; do this too often and that audience withers, because they're tuning in for validation of opinion, not formation of new opinion.
A general campaign introduces Santorum to zero marginal conversative audience and takes up valuable time. If he won the nomination, his first move would be to demand a recount.
[EDIT: Yes, I meant Jon Stewart. I regard him and Limbaugh as a species of politician -- they make their living motivating political activity of a particular bent. They didn't build their audiences via electoral politics, but once built their audience relationship / maintenance dynamics are very similar to the others named.]
> Look at the careers of Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, John Stewart, Rush Limbaugh, Rob Reich, et cetera et cetera ad absurdum. Once a politician [...]
Who is John Stewart? If you're referring to the comedian Jon Stewart, when was he ever a politician? I don't think it's fair to lump him in with people like Palin, Dean, etc. Stewart has never held public office and made a career of poking fun at politicians and the media who cover them.
Who is John Stewart? If you're referring to the comedian Jon Stewart, when was he ever a politician? I don't think it's fair to lump him in with people like Palin, Dean, etc. Stewart has never held public office and made a career of poking fun at politicians and the media who cover them.
And to be fair, as much I disagree with the man, Rush Limbaugh isn't a washed-up politician turned commentator either, he was always a radio guy.
But Limbaugh is a rather active activist (via his show) for the causes he champions. Jon Stewart doesn't give off a vibe of promoting a certain course of action among his audience.
I listen to Rush and watch Jon. They are equally prescriptive. Most of the time, they simply frame the conversation and subtly suggest a course of action. Only occasionally do either tell their audience to take direct action.
Yeah... he's able to generate an audience but he wasn't ever a politician.
I think evangelicals have caught on to the fact that they have been pandered to and then ignored by mainstream Republicans, and they're sick of it; in Santorum, they see someone who holds their beliefs unambiguously. While I would expect that he would go quiet over these issues in a general election, I have no doubt that he would attempt to implement bible-based policy in the unlikely event that he is elected.
I think this long GOP primary is a sign that both evangelicals and libertarians are realizing that the "deal" they made with the "big tent" GOP has had a poor ROI.
>I have no doubt that he would attempt to implement bible-based policy in the unlikely event that he is elected.
People thought George Bush would do the same.
People thought George Bush would do the same.
And he did. He banned federal funding for stem-cell research for biblical reasons. It might not have made the USA a theocracy, but he actually came pretty close with many of his decisions.
Intellectually, I understand all this. However when I read a pile of steaming bull manure that is presented to me at the link as a political argument, I literally feel sick a little. And that given that I am a libertarian (not a Ron Paul kind, but still) and so have significant affinity to some of the GOP positions and thus my prejudices lie rather in favor than against GOP candidates. I am not an US voter, but if I were, I would not be able to vote for a person that publishes such a vile idiocy under his name. I'm sure he could appeal to the same base without this - there must be other issues and things he could use as his special advantage. I don't believe one has to go that stupid.
> I am not an US voter, but if I were, I would not be able to vote for a person that publishes such a vile idiocy under his name.
Unless you live in US flyover country and are intimately familiar with the types of people who live there, you won't understand Santorum. It's just a cultural gap.
For what it's worth, I could name some popular opinions and ideas in, for instance, Europe that are just as shocking and repugnant to me.
Unless you live in US flyover country and are intimately familiar with the types of people who live there, you won't understand Santorum. It's just a cultural gap.
For what it's worth, I could name some popular opinions and ideas in, for instance, Europe that are just as shocking and repugnant to me.
Please tell me what ideas euorpeans hold that you find morally repugnant.
I find their criminalization of right-wing radical speech to be pretty repugnant, e.g. jail time for Holocaust denial in Germany. Don't get me wrong, Holocaust deniers are all mad as hatters, but they shouldn't be thrown in jail for expressing an opinion. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Eu...
I find many of these laws quite outdated as well, but you have to consider the historical context. These laws were made at a time when the nazis had just murdered millions of people, caused a world war, and most importantly, were still holding all the influencial positions in the country.
The nazis were a broad popular movement. It wasn't just some dictator and his family who could be removed in a day. Most of the intellectual elite was either dead or had left the country. The nazis had replaced everyone who held any kind of official role with their own people. All the judges, university teachers, school principals, police officers, civil servants, etc, they were all nazis or opportunistic collaborators with questionable political attitudes.
There was no way all these people could have been removed from their posts or put in jail where they really belonged. Preventing them from being politically active, banning their symbols and everything they might reunite behind in order to regain power, was seen as the only practical way to diffuse a very real threat.
Also, the laws were made at a time when no law could be made without the approval the US government. After all, a large number of US, British, Russian, and other soldiers had just lost their lives liberating Europe and removing the nazis from power. It would have been insane to just let the nazis resume their political activities.
But 66 years on they are no longer a threat. They have almost no popular support, and the very specific laws that violate free speech could now be replaced by general laws against inciting violence like they exist in all countries.
The nazis were a broad popular movement. It wasn't just some dictator and his family who could be removed in a day. Most of the intellectual elite was either dead or had left the country. The nazis had replaced everyone who held any kind of official role with their own people. All the judges, university teachers, school principals, police officers, civil servants, etc, they were all nazis or opportunistic collaborators with questionable political attitudes.
There was no way all these people could have been removed from their posts or put in jail where they really belonged. Preventing them from being politically active, banning their symbols and everything they might reunite behind in order to regain power, was seen as the only practical way to diffuse a very real threat.
Also, the laws were made at a time when no law could be made without the approval the US government. After all, a large number of US, British, Russian, and other soldiers had just lost their lives liberating Europe and removing the nazis from power. It would have been insane to just let the nazis resume their political activities.
But 66 years on they are no longer a threat. They have almost no popular support, and the very specific laws that violate free speech could now be replaced by general laws against inciting violence like they exist in all countries.
I don't think that's a European thing, per se. Have you ever been to Holland? ;)
I am dismayed at the continuing popularity of fascism in Europe. Ten years ago, a crypto-fascist got almost 1/5 of the vote in the French presidential election; many countries in Europe seem to elect neo-fascists or crypto-fascists to the European Parliament just to spite the EU.
Judging by the experiences of footballers like Samuel Eto'o, Mario Balotelli, and Patrice Evra, Europe is decades behind the United States in tackling the problem of racism. I've never heard of black athletes on the field of play being the subject of racist taunts either by the fans or by opposing players in the United States. It is unbelievably taboo.
I'm shocked that in Italy, it is apparently possible to simultaneously be the richest man in the country, the majority owner of a major media conglomerate, and Prime Minister. And that's setting aside all the other unsavory things about Berlusconi.
Now, I kind of expect a lot of Europeans--on HN at least--to be embarrassed about neofascists or racism or Berlusconi, but hey, I'm just as embarrassed about Santorum.
Judging by the experiences of footballers like Samuel Eto'o, Mario Balotelli, and Patrice Evra, Europe is decades behind the United States in tackling the problem of racism. I've never heard of black athletes on the field of play being the subject of racist taunts either by the fans or by opposing players in the United States. It is unbelievably taboo.
I'm shocked that in Italy, it is apparently possible to simultaneously be the richest man in the country, the majority owner of a major media conglomerate, and Prime Minister. And that's setting aside all the other unsavory things about Berlusconi.
Now, I kind of expect a lot of Europeans--on HN at least--to be embarrassed about neofascists or racism or Berlusconi, but hey, I'm just as embarrassed about Santorum.
Please don't start "my country vs. your country" threads.
I don't live in Europe. I was legitimately curious.
I don't think American culture is as uniform as you're implying it is. I'm from the bay area in california and Santorum's positions seem very foreign to me, but everyone in my circles around here at least thinks they "get" Santorum - it is accepted wisdom that's he's a crazy idiot. I don't think someone who isn't a U.S. voter is automatically more at a disadvantage than most Americans when it comes to understanding what's going on this election season.
Curious to hear some European opinions that are shocking to you. I wonder if they would be shocking to Americans in general and I wonder if Europeans would agree that those opinions and ideas are uniformly European.
Curious to hear some European opinions that are shocking to you. I wonder if they would be shocking to Americans in general and I wonder if Europeans would agree that those opinions and ideas are uniformly European.
Curious to hear some European opinions that are shocking to you.
One European idea (as practised in a reasonable sub set of Europe) that I can see many Americans finding shocking are the legal limits to free speech. Gun control is another one which would shock at least a fair number of Americans (again this varies a bit across Europe, but is always far stricter than in the US). Various ideas on taxation is a third, depending slightly on your political leaning. The lax (from a US perspective) attitude towards punishing criminals as yet another.
One European idea (as practised in a reasonable sub set of Europe) that I can see many Americans finding shocking are the legal limits to free speech. Gun control is another one which would shock at least a fair number of Americans (again this varies a bit across Europe, but is always far stricter than in the US). Various ideas on taxation is a third, depending slightly on your political leaning. The lax (from a US perspective) attitude towards punishing criminals as yet another.
I do not get the lax jail sentences for violent crimes in Europe either. For me it's not about punishment but about preventing such people from perpetrating their violence again. I don't get it but here in Europe (at least until recently) they have less violent crime so it appears to work for them.
I have lived in rural parts of the US most of my life and I don't see Santorum's positions as being from most of there either. It IS typical of a small subset of people widely dispersed, though, and that includes some Catholics and Evangelicals I know.....
[deleted](1)
I don't think American culture is as uniform as you're implying it is. I'm from the bay area in california
When was the last time the bay area was referred to as flyover country? And so far Santorum has won 10 and seconded quite a few other primaries. Crazy or not he appears to reflect the ideas of a large portion of the american populous. He regularly gets 20-30% of the vote.
When was the last time the bay area was referred to as flyover country? And so far Santorum has won 10 and seconded quite a few other primaries. Crazy or not he appears to reflect the ideas of a large portion of the american populous. He regularly gets 20-30% of the vote.
The Bay Area ain't flyover country.
Believing that the GOP that exists today is more libertarian in ways that actually affect your life, and what libertarianism means to you, regarding how government operates than the Democratic party is a mistake. Politics is not about grand philosophies and isms, it is about what set of deals and compromises each politician has made.
Economically, the GOP, while being far from what I would like, is closer to that than the Dems. Of course, it is all relative - lately, by not letting a good crisis to go to waste, Dems moved severely to the anti-libertarian direction, and the GOP was dragged kicking and screaming a bit to the libertarian direction. So the choice here would be between quite bad and somewhat not as bad as that. Economic issues are usually far more pervasive than social issues - you can filter out 99% of social issues by turning off the TV, but the economy will influence your life whatever you do and wherever you are. I say if they raise taxes it would immediately hurt me both directly in person and through my employment (less free income - less money to buy stuff that I do - less income to the company I work for - no raises to the employees). If they accept or deny gay marriage, for example, with all my respect to people that seek or oppose it, it would not matter a bit in my life, regardless of my opinion on it. So in general I feel the GOP is, well, I wouldn't say more libertarian - it's like saying Al Capone is more pacifist than Pol Pot - but less anti-libertarian where it affects my life. Maybe I am mistaken but that's the conclusion I have arrived to so far.
"my prejudices lie rather in favor than against GOP candidates. [...] I'm sure [Santorum] could appeal to the same base without this - there must be other issues and things he could use as his special advantage. I don't believe one has to go that stupid."
Alas, then you don't really understand the GOP. These beliefs are representative of a large chunk of the GOP base. Santorum's success is not a fluke in that regard.
Alas, then you don't really understand the GOP. These beliefs are representative of a large chunk of the GOP base. Santorum's success is not a fluke in that regard.
There's a large (large enough to be detectable) amount of people that believes 9/11 was organized by Bush and the moon landing was filmed in Hollywood. Yet you do not see Obama saying that or any sane politician promoting that. There's a difference between leading and appealing to the base (pun intended) instincts. I know politicians frequently do the latter, and it is disgusting every time.
You nailed it. I'm a Republican, but the candidates this time around are really depressing. I don't identify with the Tea Party ("angry" does not a political platform make,) but wish Ron Paul would win the primaries. I don't think he will.
If Santorum manages to win the general election, ritual suicide will become a serious option.
If Santorum manages to win the general election, ritual suicide will become a serious option.
Agreed. While it's often hard to distinguish Santorum's genuine beliefs from his pandering to the redneck vote, the distinction is somewhat irrelevant. He now stands for that base, and he needs it as a bargaining chip in pretty much any outcome that can occur between now and the convention. At a brokered convention, he'll be able to cash in that voting base for a cabinet or advisory position (probably not a vice presidential slot, but at least something) on Romney's ticket. If Romney ends up beating him outright before the convention, then he'll cash it in for a lucrative talkshow deal, a la Mike Huckabee. At the very least, and certainly in any event, he'll be able to sell a mountain of books.
The point is, from a game-theoretical standpoint, there is no benefit to Santorum in backing down from his rhetoric at this juncture. He's in an especially lucrative position because Romney is so perfectly ill-positioned to win over the base Santorum has carved out for himself. (In the eyes of the evangelical, white, working-class base, Romney is every bit the "snob" that Obama is).
The point is, from a game-theoretical standpoint, there is no benefit to Santorum in backing down from his rhetoric at this juncture. He's in an especially lucrative position because Romney is so perfectly ill-positioned to win over the base Santorum has carved out for himself. (In the eyes of the evangelical, white, working-class base, Romney is every bit the "snob" that Obama is).
Unconstitutional crazy positions are the best ones, because the supreme court gives you a get out of jail free card.
This is a great point. I would much rather have a president with a handful of crazy, completely wrong, clearly unconstitutional ideas than a president with a handful of just slightly wrong ideas that might actually pass. Congress and SCOTUS will block the truly crazy stuff; it's the borderline stuff that's dangerous.
Well, yes. The problem is that a president with crazy and completely wrong ideas is also more likely to have a whole bunch of just-slightly-wrong ideas because of his (or her) complete lack of rationality.
You're assuming politicians are sincere.
Is he angling for a Kingmaker position instead, i.e. extract certain concessions from Romney given that he controls a large chunk of delegates?
No, I sincerely doubt it. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is doing exactly this. Word is that he's angling to get Rand Paul a leg up for a run at the Presidency in either 2016 or 2020.
I thought the conspiracy was a V.P. bid with Romney. I'm not sure if that's more or less made-up than the Rand Paul thing though.
I don't see how Ron Paul losing more publicly than ever will help Rand's career.
The road to 1144 delegates for Romney is getting trickier and trickier with every passing primary contest[1]. It's possible to imagine a number of scenarios where Romney, in order to clear the magic number on the first ballot at the convention in Tampa, engages in horse trading with Paul in order to put him over the top.
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/07/no-clear-pa...
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/07/no-clear-pa...
He's trying to maximize his delegates going forward; that will give him all kinds of leverage in case of a Romney win or even a brokered convention.
If Rick Santorum becomes president, I think the eradication of porn from the Internet will be a quaint footnote compared to the other draconian things that'll come to pass.
If Rick Santorum becomes president, I think the attempt at eradication of porn will be the headline of a very short presidency.
The porn industry isn't unified and has virtually no lobbying power, when (depending on the reports you read) it brings in 1/3 of the revenue of the movie industry, without ever getting a box office receipt.
When you're talking about ending an industry, not only in the US but trying to ban the global industry, you're not only going to align them against you very quickly, but I bet they would be willing to spend a lot of money to smear campaign you into the ground. Oh and look, they have exceptionally hot women that (depending on the studies) approx. 40-50% of them have worked as prostitutes.
Basically, Rick Santorum would be facing an industry with the money and the means to line you up for a massive scandal that would completely destroy a "conservative family man" image.
The porn industry isn't unified and has virtually no lobbying power, when (depending on the reports you read) it brings in 1/3 of the revenue of the movie industry, without ever getting a box office receipt.
When you're talking about ending an industry, not only in the US but trying to ban the global industry, you're not only going to align them against you very quickly, but I bet they would be willing to spend a lot of money to smear campaign you into the ground. Oh and look, they have exceptionally hot women that (depending on the studies) approx. 40-50% of them have worked as prostitutes.
Basically, Rick Santorum would be facing an industry with the money and the means to line you up for a massive scandal that would completely destroy a "conservative family man" image.
Um. How would it be short? Do you expect insurrection over porn? Impeachment? I certainly agree that the porn industry would be pissed, but exactly what do you expect it to do?
Clinton was very nearly impeached for the Lewinsky scandal. Don't forget the first rule of American politics: With money, all things are possible.
Clinton was nearly impeached for perjury, not the scandal itself. Unfortunately, the one bad thing Santorum doesn't appear to be is dishonest.
True, but given the boundless ingenuity of the smut industry, I'm sure they can think of something if they're backed into a corner by Santorum. (hehe)
I thought I alluded to what they can think of quite clearly by stating some studies suggest 40-50% of women in the porn industry do or have worked as prostitutes or escorts.
I wouldn't even be surprised if the porn industry helped line him up just so they could knock the entire republican party out of the election in one messy sex scandal.
Honestly if I had at stake what the porn industry does. I'd be thinking "regardless of if Obama wins this one or not, next election there's a huge chance it's going to be republican so lets end Santorum once and for all".
No one, no matter how ardent a republican is going to vote for a 'happily married father of 8' if he's caught sleeping with an 18 year old porn star.
I wouldn't even be surprised if the porn industry helped line him up just so they could knock the entire republican party out of the election in one messy sex scandal.
Honestly if I had at stake what the porn industry does. I'd be thinking "regardless of if Obama wins this one or not, next election there's a huge chance it's going to be republican so lets end Santorum once and for all".
No one, no matter how ardent a republican is going to vote for a 'happily married father of 8' if he's caught sleeping with an 18 year old porn star.
Heh. Yesterday the Senate passed a bill saying the gov't can take away your passport if you owe more than $50K in tax. What do you want to bet that the actual law will say ". . . if the IRS claims you owe more than $50K."
Draconian comes in all flavors. We aren't waiting for the Santorum bus to drive up. It's already here.
Draconian comes in all flavors. We aren't waiting for the Santorum bus to drive up. It's already here.
[deleted]
[deleted]
One day I would love to be able to vote for a President who does not believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that a supernatural being materialized the Universe in seven days.
I mean, we give these guys nuclear launch codes!
I'm sorry if this offends some but this god bullshit really needs to disappear from our culture before humanity can truly begin to move to a higher level.
Most people would laugh their asses off (and be horrified) if a candidate for President expresses obedience and belief in Thor. What's the difference between Thor and all the other supers?
I was once called up for jury duty. When it came time to be sworn in for the initial selection I told the judge that I could not swear on the bible. He asked me why. I told him that I happen to know that the Principle of Conservation of Energy is true and that I could not, in good conscience swear on something that blatantly violates it in so many ways. He actually chuckled. I then offered that, if belief in the supernatural was a prerequisite to be selected into a jury I would gladly swear by Thor to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, etc. I told him that I like that story a little better because of the cool hammer. I was respectfully excused. Ironic, being that they were after the truth.
But I digress, I agree with the fiscal conservatism of the Republican ticket but their hyper-religious bend and ridiculous social stance sure turns me off. Santorum is insane.
Where is Joe Piscopo when you need him?
I mean, we give these guys nuclear launch codes!
I'm sorry if this offends some but this god bullshit really needs to disappear from our culture before humanity can truly begin to move to a higher level.
Most people would laugh their asses off (and be horrified) if a candidate for President expresses obedience and belief in Thor. What's the difference between Thor and all the other supers?
I was once called up for jury duty. When it came time to be sworn in for the initial selection I told the judge that I could not swear on the bible. He asked me why. I told him that I happen to know that the Principle of Conservation of Energy is true and that I could not, in good conscience swear on something that blatantly violates it in so many ways. He actually chuckled. I then offered that, if belief in the supernatural was a prerequisite to be selected into a jury I would gladly swear by Thor to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, etc. I told him that I like that story a little better because of the cool hammer. I was respectfully excused. Ironic, being that they were after the truth.
But I digress, I agree with the fiscal conservatism of the Republican ticket but their hyper-religious bend and ridiculous social stance sure turns me off. Santorum is insane.
Where is Joe Piscopo when you need him?
Here's another example of how irrational and damaging it can be to allow religion to enter government:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/15/feds-grant-permit-t...
Really? Two beautiful animals will be killed because of a belief in the supernatural. If this is not the peak of absurdity I don't know what is.
Here's a statement from the article:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/15/feds-grant-permit-t...
Really? Two beautiful animals will be killed because of a belief in the supernatural. If this is not the peak of absurdity I don't know what is.
Here's a statement from the article:
The eagle "flies higher then any other creature. It sees many things. It's closer to the Creator,"
> I happen to know that the Principle of Conservation of Energy
That is the most ironic attack on religion I have ever seen considering that the big bang was a huge violation of conservation of energy. (Science currently has no explanation for it. It may someday, but right now it's completely unknown.)
Religion actually affirms conservation of energy by saying the energy came from outside the system, and that the nature of this outside system is unknown.
The main difference is that Religion hold that the nature of this outside system will never be known, and Science holds that we may someday know it, but currently do not.
That is the most ironic attack on religion I have ever seen considering that the big bang was a huge violation of conservation of energy. (Science currently has no explanation for it. It may someday, but right now it's completely unknown.)
Religion actually affirms conservation of energy by saying the energy came from outside the system, and that the nature of this outside system is unknown.
The main difference is that Religion hold that the nature of this outside system will never be known, and Science holds that we may someday know it, but currently do not.
>the big bang was a huge violation of conservation of energy
Really? There you go! Solved! Thanks!
A few questions, since you seem to know it all (I certainly don't):
OK, so god is powerful enough to create the Universe in seven days and explain the big bang by a supernatural act of unimaginable proportions. Yet, he/it can't be bothered to at least save just the children of the aforementioned disasters and genocides?
But, he/it will help someone not loose their home, pass a final exam, hit the jackpot or win Suvivor because they prayed? While, at the same time letting a child die from cancer across town?
And he/it, while being ever-present, all-knowing, all-loving and omnipotent can't be bothered to stop hundreds of millions of his people from death, horrible illness, famine, genocide and, let's not forget being raped by priests. And, while we are on that subject, why haven't any of these priests been struck by lightning?
Either he/it doesn't give a shit or he/it is indifferent or he/it is petty and nasty and can't be bothered or he/it is not omnipotent or he/it is less powerful than the devil or...
Or better yet, he/it does not exist.
Please. Spare me the bullshit.
The thought of having someone like Santorum in the White House scares the crap out of me. Such ignorance is hard to fathom in this day and age.
And thanks for the down-votes. Keep them coming.
Really? There you go! Solved! Thanks!
A few questions, since you seem to know it all (I certainly don't):
How does religion explain 250,000 people dead from a Tsunami in Indonesia?
Or, how about a similar number in Haiti?
Or, how about the six million Jews?
And the two million Armenians?
Darfur?
How about the 48 million people dead in WW2?
Or the 21 million in WW1?
And the 20 million dead during the great Chinese famine?
OK, so god is powerful enough to create the Universe in seven days and explain the big bang by a supernatural act of unimaginable proportions. Yet, he/it can't be bothered to at least save just the children of the aforementioned disasters and genocides?
But, he/it will help someone not loose their home, pass a final exam, hit the jackpot or win Suvivor because they prayed? While, at the same time letting a child die from cancer across town?
And he/it, while being ever-present, all-knowing, all-loving and omnipotent can't be bothered to stop hundreds of millions of his people from death, horrible illness, famine, genocide and, let's not forget being raped by priests. And, while we are on that subject, why haven't any of these priests been struck by lightning?
Either he/it doesn't give a shit or he/it is indifferent or he/it is petty and nasty and can't be bothered or he/it is not omnipotent or he/it is less powerful than the devil or...
Or better yet, he/it does not exist.
Please. Spare me the bullshit.
The thought of having someone like Santorum in the White House scares the crap out of me. Such ignorance is hard to fathom in this day and age.
And thanks for the down-votes. Keep them coming.
Please take the time to read the guidelines [0], and show respect the Hacker News community by following them. We do not take kindly to violations.
Of specific note, from the guidelines:
- "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them."
- "Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you."
[0] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Of specific note, from the guidelines:
- "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them."
- "Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you."
[0] http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> "Religion hold that the nature of this outside system will never be known"
Many religions claim to already know (some part of) the nature of whatever it is outside the physical universe. They just claim that the information comes from something other than observation of physical processes.
Many religions claim to already know (some part of) the nature of whatever it is outside the physical universe. They just claim that the information comes from something other than observation of physical processes.
It's scary to hear stories of religious-extremism from Iran, but it's even scarier to hear them from the US as they have immensely more power to impose their rule on others.
I have no problem with religion, but please don't mix it with governance. Don't try to force everyone to live by the rules of your religion (or an arbitrary interpretation of your Holy Book). Especially not in their private lives. "Separation of religion and state" and "freedom of religion" used to be big issues, at least in Europe... These days, I don't know anymore.
I have no problem with religion, but please don't mix it with governance. Don't try to force everyone to live by the rules of your religion (or an arbitrary interpretation of your Holy Book). Especially not in their private lives. "Separation of religion and state" and "freedom of religion" used to be big issues, at least in Europe... These days, I don't know anymore.
My intent wasn't to start a flame-war on religion but to point out that certain belief systems are conducive to truly irrational decision making. I can be a little passionate about this. I am truly sorry if my post went a little too far.
Those who govern us have the power to do great good or great evil. It is my contention that a deep belief in anything supernatural should automatically disqualify someone from political office at almost any level. I did say "deep belief". The main reason I think that this is important is that those who are religious extremists are so invested in their belief system that they come to office with an agenda. And this agenda is not based on a reality, no matter how many people think otherwise.
I did say "religious extremists". My parents would describe themselves as believers. They'll never hurt anyone with or for their beliefs. They simply grew up at a time when that's what you did and that's what you believed. They just happened to be born somewhere where the local "team" believed in Christianity, they would have believed just as strongly in any other religion had they been born somewhere else.
A typical example of religious exremism is the extension of religious judgement onto the gay community. I'm not gay but have absolutely no problem with that community at all. Why? Because if I had a problem with that I'd have to have a problem with my kids having brown hair or long fingers. Why? Because it is a genetic mutation (not a pejorative, just fact) just like being born with blue eyes. Virtually nobody decides to be gay, they are born that way. They could have been born with green eyes just as well. Yet, the religious extremists will judge these people harshly and reject the evolutionary basis of the phenotypes they dislike. They'll pick something with no evidence of any kind against something that has mountains (literally) of evidence all around us. One of my favorite demonstrations of evolution is that my kids don't all look that same: mutation at work.
The Santorum doctrine is deeply rooted on religious beliefs. He is a religious extremist. Virtually nothing comes out of his mouth that does not have a foundation on his faith. That's why I think he is a dangerous man and sincerely hope he does not win the nomination.
This latest attack on porn is just an extension of that. I don't like porn. I think its demeaning and portrays an image of women that is simply grotesque. Few things change your mind more than having a daughter, of course. Having said that, I can't be on the side of restricting anyone's right to create or consume porn. That's their business and neither I nor government has any place in what they do with their private lives. Like it or not.
I do think it is OK to have community-based rules. I don't want the stuff on TV for my kids to see. They can't comprehend it and are not mentally prepared to deal with it. I'm not saying that the Federal Government ought to set these standards. It could be a States issue. That said, I'd rather keep government entirely out of it. The market can decide these kinds of things very efficiently. For example, if porn was available without any kind of access restrictions on my satellite service, I would cancel it. So would others. Very soon, if that satellite company wanted my business they'd implement a sensible way for me to decide what I want my family to be exposed to. That's the way it should work. I don't want Santorum or anyone to tell us what we can and cannot do based on his deep-rooted belief in the supernatural.
My courtroom example exposes an aspect of this country that is troublesome: If you don't profess belief in the same supernatural stories the religious majority pushes you can and are excluded from political life. I wonder how many Senators, Representatives and, in general, politicians are atheists who begrudgingly place their hand on the bible when they are sworn-in because, well, they have to.
Think about it. Views and stances like Santorums are no different than those of the extremist religion-based governments in the middle east we hear about every day. We don't want that here. If that means accepting others' freedom to make and use porn, so be it.
Those who govern us have the power to do great good or great evil. It is my contention that a deep belief in anything supernatural should automatically disqualify someone from political office at almost any level. I did say "deep belief". The main reason I think that this is important is that those who are religious extremists are so invested in their belief system that they come to office with an agenda. And this agenda is not based on a reality, no matter how many people think otherwise.
I did say "religious extremists". My parents would describe themselves as believers. They'll never hurt anyone with or for their beliefs. They simply grew up at a time when that's what you did and that's what you believed. They just happened to be born somewhere where the local "team" believed in Christianity, they would have believed just as strongly in any other religion had they been born somewhere else.
A typical example of religious exremism is the extension of religious judgement onto the gay community. I'm not gay but have absolutely no problem with that community at all. Why? Because if I had a problem with that I'd have to have a problem with my kids having brown hair or long fingers. Why? Because it is a genetic mutation (not a pejorative, just fact) just like being born with blue eyes. Virtually nobody decides to be gay, they are born that way. They could have been born with green eyes just as well. Yet, the religious extremists will judge these people harshly and reject the evolutionary basis of the phenotypes they dislike. They'll pick something with no evidence of any kind against something that has mountains (literally) of evidence all around us. One of my favorite demonstrations of evolution is that my kids don't all look that same: mutation at work.
The Santorum doctrine is deeply rooted on religious beliefs. He is a religious extremist. Virtually nothing comes out of his mouth that does not have a foundation on his faith. That's why I think he is a dangerous man and sincerely hope he does not win the nomination.
This latest attack on porn is just an extension of that. I don't like porn. I think its demeaning and portrays an image of women that is simply grotesque. Few things change your mind more than having a daughter, of course. Having said that, I can't be on the side of restricting anyone's right to create or consume porn. That's their business and neither I nor government has any place in what they do with their private lives. Like it or not.
I do think it is OK to have community-based rules. I don't want the stuff on TV for my kids to see. They can't comprehend it and are not mentally prepared to deal with it. I'm not saying that the Federal Government ought to set these standards. It could be a States issue. That said, I'd rather keep government entirely out of it. The market can decide these kinds of things very efficiently. For example, if porn was available without any kind of access restrictions on my satellite service, I would cancel it. So would others. Very soon, if that satellite company wanted my business they'd implement a sensible way for me to decide what I want my family to be exposed to. That's the way it should work. I don't want Santorum or anyone to tell us what we can and cannot do based on his deep-rooted belief in the supernatural.
My courtroom example exposes an aspect of this country that is troublesome: If you don't profess belief in the same supernatural stories the religious majority pushes you can and are excluded from political life. I wonder how many Senators, Representatives and, in general, politicians are atheists who begrudgingly place their hand on the bible when they are sworn-in because, well, they have to.
Think about it. Views and stances like Santorums are no different than those of the extremist religion-based governments in the middle east we hear about every day. We don't want that here. If that means accepting others' freedom to make and use porn, so be it.
Maybe no one else will but you have to call it like it is: this is just pandering to the extreme conservative base of the GOP.
"The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws."
You mean the obscenity laws that SCOTUS keeps beating down? They have limited the FCC now so you will at least be able to hear accidental cussing on TV without the stations paying insane fines. The Superbowl/Janet Jackson 'nipple-slip' punishment has been completely reversed.
Since porn is on the internet, it is NOT easily accessible to minors. Outside of the few corner cases (public wifi mostly) it's not that easy for minors to get access. At that point it's up to parents to limit exposure through the readily available software.
"Santorum’s administration could take American-based porn distributors to court for violating obscenity laws, said Volokh, and have them shuttered."
They failed with magazines, why would the internet be any different? It's only a different medium in that the content is delivered more easily. That doesn't make it more obscene.
All this talk is why Santorum might win the nomination but lose a landslide of an election. While centrist Republicans might vote for him just because he is GOP, his extreme views turn the independents and undecideds off and that's who you need to win an election.
"The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws."
You mean the obscenity laws that SCOTUS keeps beating down? They have limited the FCC now so you will at least be able to hear accidental cussing on TV without the stations paying insane fines. The Superbowl/Janet Jackson 'nipple-slip' punishment has been completely reversed.
Since porn is on the internet, it is NOT easily accessible to minors. Outside of the few corner cases (public wifi mostly) it's not that easy for minors to get access. At that point it's up to parents to limit exposure through the readily available software.
"Santorum’s administration could take American-based porn distributors to court for violating obscenity laws, said Volokh, and have them shuttered."
They failed with magazines, why would the internet be any different? It's only a different medium in that the content is delivered more easily. That doesn't make it more obscene.
All this talk is why Santorum might win the nomination but lose a landslide of an election. While centrist Republicans might vote for him just because he is GOP, his extreme views turn the independents and undecideds off and that's who you need to win an election.
> Since porn is on the internet, it is NOT easily accessible to minors.
That seems to be entirely beside Santorum's point. His particular brand of politics is largely against any kind of sexual freedom. Gay rights, abortion, even contraception is something they would like the government to legislate against. To them, porn is not bad because kids might see it; porn is bad, full stop.
That seems to be entirely beside Santorum's point. His particular brand of politics is largely against any kind of sexual freedom. Gay rights, abortion, even contraception is something they would like the government to legislate against. To them, porn is not bad because kids might see it; porn is bad, full stop.
> To them, porn is not bad because kids might see it; porn is bad, full stop.
The problem (for the anti-porn crowd) with that is SCOTUS won't censor anything unless they have a damn good reason to. They wouldn't touch video games because there is already a mechanism (the ESRB) to give parents the power to protect their kids from the 'dangers' within. Consenting adults are pretty much free and clear to do anything they want to themselves as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else - as far as the current justices appear to be concerned.
The problem (for the anti-porn crowd) with that is SCOTUS won't censor anything unless they have a damn good reason to. They wouldn't touch video games because there is already a mechanism (the ESRB) to give parents the power to protect their kids from the 'dangers' within. Consenting adults are pretty much free and clear to do anything they want to themselves as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else - as far as the current justices appear to be concerned.
Any pot cases making their way to the SCOTUS in the near future?
>Since porn is on the internet, it is NOT easily accessible to minors.
How do you figure? If you've got a house with an internet connection, there's a pretty high chance the kid in the house will be able to figure out a way to access pornography unless the parents lock down the ever-increasing list of devices from which this could be accessed. I'm not saying it's something that the government should involve themselves with ... but I also don't know that diligent-parenting can ever be an effective solution to say that porn isn't easily accessible to minors.
As for pandering, with Santorum I'm not certain it's the case. Many of the things he supports politically appear to be part of his core beliefs.
How do you figure? If you've got a house with an internet connection, there's a pretty high chance the kid in the house will be able to figure out a way to access pornography unless the parents lock down the ever-increasing list of devices from which this could be accessed. I'm not saying it's something that the government should involve themselves with ... but I also don't know that diligent-parenting can ever be an effective solution to say that porn isn't easily accessible to minors.
As for pandering, with Santorum I'm not certain it's the case. Many of the things he supports politically appear to be part of his core beliefs.
Once you get internet at your house, how that gets locked down is your problem and no longer requires government intervention. I will not be the person who mandates that the entire internet be censored because a few parents can't take the time to lock down their e-devices.
I'm not saying he's not anti-porn. He's pandering because, knowing that he's a lawyer, and assuming he knows at least rudimentary constitutional law (I'd hope), he knows he can't affect a single iota of change in this area. He's just saying it to appeal to the ultra-conservative base.
I'm not saying he's not anti-porn. He's pandering because, knowing that he's a lawyer, and assuming he knows at least rudimentary constitutional law (I'd hope), he knows he can't affect a single iota of change in this area. He's just saying it to appeal to the ultra-conservative base.
Wouldn't the better question be, so what if it is accessible? Can't say I know anyone damaged by porn.
What can be damaging is the stigmatization, shame, and self-loathing created by culturally mandated guilt in response to nearly universal biological functions. Look no further than the average conservative city's Sunday paper for references to some study claiming that use inevitably leads to abuse.
Extreme social conservatives.
You can be extremely conservative in regards to individual freedom without having all the completely counter-conservative opinions of the evangelical enforcement agency.
Not trolling just a semantic that bothers me.
PS The internet would be different in court in the same way that I don't get sued for leaving my newspaper on the restaurant table for someone else after I am done with it, where if I leave a copy of a movie on the internet for others I potential get extradited. Only half joking. It would be the same insane confuse the jury trials we have now.
You can be extremely conservative in regards to individual freedom without having all the completely counter-conservative opinions of the evangelical enforcement agency.
Not trolling just a semantic that bothers me.
PS The internet would be different in court in the same way that I don't get sued for leaving my newspaper on the restaurant table for someone else after I am done with it, where if I leave a copy of a movie on the internet for others I potential get extradited. Only half joking. It would be the same insane confuse the jury trials we have now.
Yeah, because 17 year olds can't use the Internet.
17 year olds can definitely use the internet but they have to access it from somewhere. Like I said, no doubt they can find ways to get there. If mom and dad don't pay for it (unlikely scenario these days) or lock down the computers so they don't have access without supervision (not that difficult), it's not as easy to get to as one would think.
Personally, I wouldn't put those limits on a 17-year-old, even my own (don't have one yet). However, the overall point is that Santorum doesn't want anyone to have access to porn, even someone over the age of 18. He feels that his definition of obscene should be everyone's.
Personally, I wouldn't put those limits on a 17-year-old, even my own (don't have one yet). However, the overall point is that Santorum doesn't want anyone to have access to porn, even someone over the age of 18. He feels that his definition of obscene should be everyone's.
lock down the computers so they don't have access without supervision (not that difficult)
Um, I've worked several years as a network admin and dealt quite a bit with firewalls and network security in general, and I'm completely at a loss to come up with a not that difficult way to block porn on the internet in a way that couldn't be circumvented in less than 15 minutes by your average even half way technical teenager. I'm curious to hear what you had in mind. Hell even if are a super hard core network security guru and manage to completely lock down your home network, it's basically impossible to a find a point in any town where you aren't within a short walk of an open wifi network.
Um, I've worked several years as a network admin and dealt quite a bit with firewalls and network security in general, and I'm completely at a loss to come up with a not that difficult way to block porn on the internet in a way that couldn't be circumvented in less than 15 minutes by your average even half way technical teenager. I'm curious to hear what you had in mind. Hell even if are a super hard core network security guru and manage to completely lock down your home network, it's basically impossible to a find a point in any town where you aren't within a short walk of an open wifi network.
> I'm completely at a loss to come up with a not that difficult way to block porn on the internet in a way that couldn't be circumvented in less than 15 minutes by your average even half way technical teenager.
The easiest way is a password on a computer. If you aren't around to supervise your kid, they aren't allowed to be on the computer. You could also keep the computer in a public location, like the living room or den, where they will be highly unlikely to surf porn.
And I can't imagine there aren't good firewall programs out there for parents to use. There were at least mediocre ones a decade+ ago when most people were still on dial up.
Open wifi networks are still an issue, like I said. Although I'm not sure how many teenagers would surf for porn in Starbucks. Certainly not enough to warrant the censoring of the entire internet.
The easiest way is a password on a computer. If you aren't around to supervise your kid, they aren't allowed to be on the computer. You could also keep the computer in a public location, like the living room or den, where they will be highly unlikely to surf porn.
And I can't imagine there aren't good firewall programs out there for parents to use. There were at least mediocre ones a decade+ ago when most people were still on dial up.
Open wifi networks are still an issue, like I said. Although I'm not sure how many teenagers would surf for porn in Starbucks. Certainly not enough to warrant the censoring of the entire internet.
Get around passwords are trivial in most cases if you have unsupervised access to the computer. The only chance you have is to either lock away the actual computer and only have the screen and keyboard accessible or to epoxy shut the case and fill all the external ports with glue. Again location of the computer is irrelevant unless you never ever leave your teenager home alone. All of this is assuming the kid in question doesn't just buy his own computer, and with decent laptops being less than $400 new and half that (or less) on ebay, that's quite reasonable these days. Plus most phones you can buy today are quite capable of both downloading and viewing porn.
Home web filtering solutions are also joke and snake oil, always have been. They'll stop dim and uninterested people who don't really care too much one way or the other, but anyone willing to spend 5-10 minutes thinking about the problem will waltz around them.
As to open wifi networks, they won't be watching the porn at Starbucks, they'll be downloading it for later viewing.
And finally it doesn't matter how much you do to lock down your computers and networks when they just go over to friends house and use the unlocked and unfiltered computer there.
Again censoring the entire internet is obviously Wrong. But thinking that you can prevent your teenager from viewing porn on the internet if they really wish to do so simply naive.
Home web filtering solutions are also joke and snake oil, always have been. They'll stop dim and uninterested people who don't really care too much one way or the other, but anyone willing to spend 5-10 minutes thinking about the problem will waltz around them.
As to open wifi networks, they won't be watching the porn at Starbucks, they'll be downloading it for later viewing.
And finally it doesn't matter how much you do to lock down your computers and networks when they just go over to friends house and use the unlocked and unfiltered computer there.
Again censoring the entire internet is obviously Wrong. But thinking that you can prevent your teenager from viewing porn on the internet if they really wish to do so simply naive.
Plus you can always fire up MS Paint and draw stick-boobies/penises and fapping comics for massive lulz among your other 12 year old friends. I don't get the idea that people think porn is hard to access or come by even with the most draconian of locks. Okay, so a kid isn't allowed to use his home computer or watch t.v. (The only way to be sure your kid doesn't watch digital porn at home.) He can find porn at the library/school/friend's house/open wifi as you mention. There is also "nudity" one can find in dictionaries-with-sketches, anatomy books, art books, etc. that kids will nevertheless treat as porn because of the forbidden nature of both.
Yea, I mean even back in my pre-internet youth there was always someone who had somehow gotten a hold of a porno mag or VHS tape from somewhere. The only thing blocking porn on the internet will do is make kids more resourceful in finding ways to work around those blocks...which I guess might be a good thing.
So installing porn filters and locks on your home computer is probably a good thing, not because it will prevent your kids from watching porn, but it will make them to learn more about computers and computer networks :)
So installing porn filters and locks on your home computer is probably a good thing, not because it will prevent your kids from watching porn, but it will make them to learn more about computers and computer networks :)
Several of the most popular porn sites are in the Alexa top 100 (ish) in the U.S. You don't get that kind of traffic without having a massive number of Americans watching porn regularly.
There's a perception that watching porn is taboo, but that's probably because it's not a socially acceptable topic of conversation. Everyone does it or has done it.
There is absolutely no way that this idiotic pledge of his can have a net positive gain for him. If anything, this will probably encourage otherwise non-voters to vote against him.
There's a perception that watching porn is taboo, but that's probably because it's not a socially acceptable topic of conversation. Everyone does it or has done it.
There is absolutely no way that this idiotic pledge of his can have a net positive gain for him. If anything, this will probably encourage otherwise non-voters to vote against him.
Indeed, with Utah being #1 in porn consumption, how did his advisors ever justify these proposals?
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_11821265
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_11821265
Obviously, the notion that Santorum could somehow scrub out the tubes and eliminate Internet porn is laughable.
However, it is unfortunately very plausible, if he or some other religious extremist became president, that hundreds or thousands of citizens (a more or less random selection from the millions that occasionally view porn) might be arrested, caged, fined, and otherwise abused as part of a dysfunctional and technically incompetent 'war on porn'.
(The morality of it is interesting, too: what's worse, jerking off while watching a blowjob video, or apprehending a human being under threat of violence and putting them in a cage?)
However, it is unfortunately very plausible, if he or some other religious extremist became president, that hundreds or thousands of citizens (a more or less random selection from the millions that occasionally view porn) might be arrested, caged, fined, and otherwise abused as part of a dysfunctional and technically incompetent 'war on porn'.
(The morality of it is interesting, too: what's worse, jerking off while watching a blowjob video, or apprehending a human being under threat of violence and putting them in a cage?)
[deleted]
[deleted]
This sort of thing makes me wonder what those of us in the lifestyle would be subjected to under such a president. Midnight raids in our homes?
I … don’t … understand?
So everyone and their mother are complaining about big government and one of the two guys who has good chances of becoming the nominee is in favor of doing draconian (fascist, even) big government stuff. What?!
American voter, what’s going on? I’m only confused. I have given up making sense of it.
So everyone and their mother are complaining about big government and one of the two guys who has good chances of becoming the nominee is in favor of doing draconian (fascist, even) big government stuff. What?!
American voter, what’s going on? I’m only confused. I have given up making sense of it.
This is old hat.
Leftists want the government to leave people's private lives alone and stick their fingers in everyone else's business lives.
Conservatives want the opposite.
Leftists want the government to leave people's private lives alone and stick their fingers in everyone else's business lives.
Conservatives want the opposite.
It's the neo-conservative campaign slogan.
Get out of my business, and get into my bedroom!
Get out of my business, and get into my bedroom!
I think you're mistaking "neo-conservative" with social conservative.
The neocon motto is: "Tell them what they want to hear, so long they keep paying for the empire"
Neither the dailycaller.com article nor the statement on ricksantorum.com mention SOPA or ISP filtering. They also don't mention creating new laws (which a president cannot do as part of the executive branch).
Santorum's statement mentions that he'd appoint an Attorney General (also in the executive branch) that would enforce existing obscenity laws.
Its fine to disagree with Santorum on this, but its a bit misleading to say he'd force ISPs to filter content (or that he'd have the power to do so).
Santorum's statement mentions that he'd appoint an Attorney General (also in the executive branch) that would enforce existing obscenity laws.
Its fine to disagree with Santorum on this, but its a bit misleading to say he'd force ISPs to filter content (or that he'd have the power to do so).
True.
Santorum is just the most recent incarnation of the moral majority that want to dictate how you should act in your private life. Part of the same group that screams about the government intruding on gun rights, religious rights, etc. A hypocrite.
While, I am hopeful he won't get the votes to event be considered for the GOP nominee, I do hope someone like Larry Flynt will crawl out and destroy yet another moralist.
What happens between consenting adults in their private lives has nothing to do the government.
A long time optimist (and citizen of) that people in the US will do the right thing, I am glad that I have an exit opportunity to saner parts of the world.
The fact that Santorum and his brand of politics has traction , on some level, scares me.
Santorum is just the most recent incarnation of the moral majority that want to dictate how you should act in your private life. Part of the same group that screams about the government intruding on gun rights, religious rights, etc. A hypocrite.
While, I am hopeful he won't get the votes to event be considered for the GOP nominee, I do hope someone like Larry Flynt will crawl out and destroy yet another moralist.
What happens between consenting adults in their private lives has nothing to do the government.
A long time optimist (and citizen of) that people in the US will do the right thing, I am glad that I have an exit opportunity to saner parts of the world.
The fact that Santorum and his brand of politics has traction , on some level, scares me.
What happens between consenting adults in their private lives has nothing to do the government.
Most people who say this don't really believe this. Should I be allowed to pay a consenting adult $3/hour to clean my bedroom, while I talk about how much I dislike people of $PROTECTED_CLASS?
[edit: to clarify my position, I have no objection to any consensual activities between adults. This includes gay sex, low wage labor, unlicensed medicine, etc.]
Most people who say this don't really believe this. Should I be allowed to pay a consenting adult $3/hour to clean my bedroom, while I talk about how much I dislike people of $PROTECTED_CLASS?
[edit: to clarify my position, I have no objection to any consensual activities between adults. This includes gay sex, low wage labor, unlicensed medicine, etc.]
When you bring money and power dynamics into the equation, he notion of consent gets complicated. Consent means free engagement in activity not due to pressure, economic, social, or otherwise. A parent and child or student and teacher having sex is frowned upon by many liberals, not because they are prude, but because they believe consent is not possible in that case.
Yes, liberals have justifications for their preferred intrusions on personal freedom just as conservatives do.
And in both cases, I believe that their appeals to personal freedom are mostly intellectually dishonest post-hoc justifications for pre-existing beliefs.
A parent and child...
You'll note that in my post, I explicitly referred to consenting adults (just as jmspring did). Is there some reason you believe these two adults are capable of consenting to gay sex on film in return for money, but those same two adults are incapable of consenting to cleaning bedrooms and listening to racial epithets for less money?
And in both cases, I believe that their appeals to personal freedom are mostly intellectually dishonest post-hoc justifications for pre-existing beliefs.
A parent and child...
You'll note that in my post, I explicitly referred to consenting adults (just as jmspring did). Is there some reason you believe these two adults are capable of consenting to gay sex on film in return for money, but those same two adults are incapable of consenting to cleaning bedrooms and listening to racial epithets for less money?
I must not understand what you're asking here but what's wrong with that? If someone wanted to work for $3/hour, why not let them?
Because the minimum wage is higher than $3/hour.
It think you missed his point that he doesn't believe in minimum wage. At least that what I get from his comment.
Yes that's right. Not that I don't believe in minimum wage, per se, but that I don't believe in laws generally that prevent people from interacting with each other in accordance with each person's self interest.
Or if I want to avoid pedantic arguments, maybe I should say "perceived" self interest. I'm sure there are many paternal government supporters who will do their best to convince a jobless poor person that it's actually bad to work for a rate that some bureaucracy doesn't like.
Or if I want to avoid pedantic arguments, maybe I should say "perceived" self interest. I'm sure there are many paternal government supporters who will do their best to convince a jobless poor person that it's actually bad to work for a rate that some bureaucracy doesn't like.
You're right, claiming Santorum openly supports SOPA style content filtering is hyperbole with no basis in his actual statement (http://www.ricksantorum.com/enforcing-laws-against-illegal-p...). Admittedly though, it is a potential outcome.
dailycaller.com:
"To black out foreign sites, Santorum would likely need legislative action requiring Internet service providers to use “a mandatory filter set up by the government or by the service providers,” said Volokh."
"To black out foreign sites, Santorum would likely need legislative action requiring Internet service providers to use “a mandatory filter set up by the government or by the service providers,” said Volokh."
Thanks, I missed that. Still, Santorum's statement did not mention a desire to go after foreign sites (which would require something like SOPA or an international treaty). The Daily Caller just mentioned that his enforcement of existing laws wouldn't affect international sites.
He's feeding slop to the low-IQ quartile of voters, nothing more.
That said, I remember advocating a simple manner of obliterating the porn industry a long time ago. (Not porn, mind you, but rather the nasty business of actually producing it.) Just reduce copyright protection of pornographic material to 1 day. After this, what's currently piracy would become ultra-cheap, legal trade, and it would be quickly unprofitable to finance new material.
That said, I remember advocating a simple manner of obliterating the porn industry a long time ago. (Not porn, mind you, but rather the nasty business of actually producing it.) Just reduce copyright protection of pornographic material to 1 day. After this, what's currently piracy would become ultra-cheap, legal trade, and it would be quickly unprofitable to finance new material.
Strictly speaking, you could probably even revoke copyright protection for porn entirely. The relevant clause of the constitution reads, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." IANAL, but it seems like you could take an originalist interpretation and say porn is in no way a useful art, and that even if it were, while congress has the power to do so, it can probably choose not to exercise that power provide protection to some suitably broad class of works.
They're still trying to figure out whether porn reduces rape. If so, that would make porn more useful than the average work of fiction, which is merely entertaining.
There are plenty of exhibitionists who would mass-produce it for free.
They're already doing that now, just look at all the NSFW subreddits.
I don't think that would do the trick: the porn industry would adapt and move from pure porn to movies with a actual plot and characters that would happen to have long scenes of unstimulated sex. I mean, is 9 Songs[1] porn? What about the Brown Bunny? You'd probably need a lawsuit to decide for each case.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_Songs
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_Songs
Seeing as the various x rated tube sites have a business model thats based around the swapping of copyrighted material plus a freemium/premium option for those willing to dish out money directly or sign up for a sister site, I'm willing to bet that a one day copyright window wouldn't really make a big deal. In reality, I think the practical shelf life/copyright life of a video is a day anyways and then it ends up on a tube site or torrent. I barely watch a hollywood movie more than once, how many people who use pay sites bother going to the archives? There are probably just enough people willing to pay for day one access that it keeps the industry going.
Porn is already dirt cheap to produce and readily available for free. People pay for porn because they are lazy or stupid or look at ads for scams that abuse their stupidity.
Also, your solution doesn't solve the "problem" of watching porn, which is most of the problem prudes have with porn.
Also, your solution doesn't solve the "problem" of watching porn, which is most of the problem prudes have with porn.
To be clear, he's advocating cracking down on "obscenity" and not "pornography". With the notion that pornography can be legal but obscenity is, by definition, illegal.
The fact that we still have obscenity laws on the books is, well, obscene.
It's all moot, though, as there's no chance he'll get the nomination, let alone the presidency.
The fact that we still have obscenity laws on the books is, well, obscene.
It's all moot, though, as there's no chance he'll get the nomination, let alone the presidency.
Has any kind of border between "normal" pornography and obscene been defined?
Yes, it's called the "Miller test" and it was created before the internet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
The big question here is what the hell are "community standards" when talking about the internet?
The big question here is what the hell are "community standards" when talking about the internet?
I see. Well, the "community standards" on 4chan for example, or even among younger generations in general today are likely to be different from the casual Internet-users.
I suppose Santorum would go by the "community standards" of his voters, no matter if they are Internet-users or not.
I suppose Santorum would go by the "community standards" of his voters, no matter if they are Internet-users or not.
Sort of. Obscenity is relative; it's something that offends the prevalent morality of the time and thus what is obscene differs by both time and place. Or for a related definition it must be material "utterly without redeeming social importance". Of course, what is "socially important" is very much changable and ill-defined.
As a result, the question of what is and what isn't rarely easily answerable. In the US, these days, child porn is obscene (but is also illegal several times over via other laws, so that hardly matters) and even a textual and fictional account of the rape of a child might be obscene if it seems to a jury that it was meant purely to titillate. On the other hand, an autobiography of someone who was abused as a child, or a textbook meant for social workers discussing how to help the victim of child abuse would not be obscene (assuming, of course, a jury agrees on what the material in question is). Depictions of bestiality and other similar acts are probably obscene, but maybe not - it all depends on what a jury says. And there are different rules at the national level and in the various states. Sex toys are never obscene at the national level, but are obscene in Alabama. On the other hand, nothing is obscene in Oregon.
tl;dr summary: Has a border been defined? No. :)
As a result, the question of what is and what isn't rarely easily answerable. In the US, these days, child porn is obscene (but is also illegal several times over via other laws, so that hardly matters) and even a textual and fictional account of the rape of a child might be obscene if it seems to a jury that it was meant purely to titillate. On the other hand, an autobiography of someone who was abused as a child, or a textbook meant for social workers discussing how to help the victim of child abuse would not be obscene (assuming, of course, a jury agrees on what the material in question is). Depictions of bestiality and other similar acts are probably obscene, but maybe not - it all depends on what a jury says. And there are different rules at the national level and in the various states. Sex toys are never obscene at the national level, but are obscene in Alabama. On the other hand, nothing is obscene in Oregon.
tl;dr summary: Has a border been defined? No. :)
Most obscenity laws are state laws. Meaning that the definition changes state to state. Some of which are very very specific.
And from DA to DA, since in practice all that matters is whether a DA wants to ruin someone's life by pushing a case, example a teenager who sends a picture of themself to a friend.
Which reminds me of this fine graph:
http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=550
It shows the American states on a scatterplot. Color is voting preference; the X and Y axes show search frequency for "god" and "free gay porn".
http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=550
It shows the American states on a scatterplot. Color is voting preference; the X and Y axes show search frequency for "god" and "free gay porn".
"oh god oh god oh god" is frequently heard in porn movies...
This type of stuff is why I expect Romney to be the actual nominee. Going by everything else, I would seriously doubt they put Santorum in the VP slot.
I do wish we could get a TRUE small government candidate from either party.
I do wish we could get a TRUE small government candidate from either party.
Ron Paul
Not that he has a real chance at the nomination, but there you go. Most people don't actually want a small government. They want a government which fixes the problems that they perceive in society (whether that be porn, guns, abortion or health care).
Not that he has a real chance at the nomination, but there you go. Most people don't actually want a small government. They want a government which fixes the problems that they perceive in society (whether that be porn, guns, abortion or health care).
I agree. I am baffled by people that talk about the need for fewer environment regulations and smaller government, but then they push for large military spending, the creation of the DHS and TSA, and advocating things like this.
To me, many conservative commentators sound more like they want an Orwellian society than a free society: Don't get in the way of business and only think and do what we want you to think and do.
I appreciate Ron Paul in that when he says small government, he means it, including giving us freedoms that social conservatives believe are morally objectionable.
To me, many conservative commentators sound more like they want an Orwellian society than a free society: Don't get in the way of business and only think and do what we want you to think and do.
I appreciate Ron Paul in that when he says small government, he means it, including giving us freedoms that social conservatives believe are morally objectionable.
I appreciate Ron Paul in that when he says small government, he means it, including giving us freedoms that social conservatives believe are morally objectionable.
Ok, I wanted to stay out of this political discussion, but I just can't stand seeing this Ron Paul fawning go uncontested. Ron Paul is a social conservative, and he legislates as one. He is so anti-choice that he has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act four times; this act wouldn't just outlaw abortion, it would outlaw birth control by defining human life as beginning at conception. Love it or hate it, but please don't claim that Ron Paul is anything other than a social conservative, legislatively speaking.
EDIT: As pointed out below, I was mistaken (ignorant) of the difference between contraceptive and contragestive; I still stand by my disappointment that the strongest libertarian voice in this country is steadfastly anti-choice, but I was incorrect on the matter of the common forms of birth control.
Ok, I wanted to stay out of this political discussion, but I just can't stand seeing this Ron Paul fawning go uncontested. Ron Paul is a social conservative, and he legislates as one. He is so anti-choice that he has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act four times; this act wouldn't just outlaw abortion, it would outlaw birth control by defining human life as beginning at conception. Love it or hate it, but please don't claim that Ron Paul is anything other than a social conservative, legislatively speaking.
EDIT: As pointed out below, I was mistaken (ignorant) of the difference between contraceptive and contragestive; I still stand by my disappointment that the strongest libertarian voice in this country is steadfastly anti-choice, but I was incorrect on the matter of the common forms of birth control.
I realize the comment came off and being a huge Ron Paul fan, but I'm not. I was only pointing out that one can appreciate his consistency in the face of opposition in certain aspects from his own party.
I was listening to NPR today and there was a discussion about how Romney's political strategists dictate the man's political rhetoric in order to be able to placate or appeal to specific demographics. In other words, the man isn't genuine. He doesn't say what he really believes, only what his strategists say he should be saying to get the most votes.
I wish more politicians could be more honest to their core values and beliefs, but as a student of Political Science I understand the rules of the game incentivize this type of behavior.
Did anyone what The Adjustment Bureau? The guy gets elected because he was stopped the game and was honest with his supporters, though I doubt that would work in real life.
I was listening to NPR today and there was a discussion about how Romney's political strategists dictate the man's political rhetoric in order to be able to placate or appeal to specific demographics. In other words, the man isn't genuine. He doesn't say what he really believes, only what his strategists say he should be saying to get the most votes.
I wish more politicians could be more honest to their core values and beliefs, but as a student of Political Science I understand the rules of the game incentivize this type of behavior.
Did anyone what The Adjustment Bureau? The guy gets elected because he was stopped the game and was honest with his supporters, though I doubt that would work in real life.
> "it would outlaw birth control by defining human life as beginning at conception"
Most forms of birth control prevent conception ("contraceptives"). Only a few types act after conception ("contragestives" [0], which prevent implantation). A law of the type you described would not affect most forms of birth control.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contragestive
Most forms of birth control prevent conception ("contraceptives"). Only a few types act after conception ("contragestives" [0], which prevent implantation). A law of the type you described would not affect most forms of birth control.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contragestive
I just keep thinking of the lead up to WWII and WWII, and think Ron Paul would not be a good person for the job.
They would happened the same exact way if Ron Paul was president at the time. We would have stayed out of it until attacked, Congress would declare war, and then we would win and come home in 4 years. (or 2 in the case of WWI)
Those wars are very different than Vietnam of Afghanistan.
Those wars are very different than Vietnam of Afghanistan.
No, he would have never done the lend-lease in WWII, and it is unlikely we would have been targeted in WWI.
Wanting a small government and wanting that government to fix your pet issue are not mutually exclusive.
This recent spate of downvoting has really got me down on HN. It's leading more and more into groupthink, as people are using it as a 'I disagree with this' button.
I'm not saying it's rational, or defending it, but in my experience it's quite common for someone to believe in small government, but have an item or two that should be exceptions.
For me, it's healthcare and education. For many republicans, it's defense.
Individually, each view of the government may be intelligent and rational, but if each person has a small amount of input on how government is run, and you end up with a bloated, badly designed government that no single person in the group wanted.
IMO, that's a valid and important addition to the GP's point (which I agree with). If anyone wants to argue the point (which I may well be wrong about), my email is in my profile.
I'm not saying it's rational, or defending it, but in my experience it's quite common for someone to believe in small government, but have an item or two that should be exceptions.
For me, it's healthcare and education. For many republicans, it's defense.
Individually, each view of the government may be intelligent and rational, but if each person has a small amount of input on how government is run, and you end up with a bloated, badly designed government that no single person in the group wanted.
IMO, that's a valid and important addition to the GP's point (which I agree with). If anyone wants to argue the point (which I may well be wrong about), my email is in my profile.
Excellent use of tax dollars, freedom of speech, and small government.
It saddens me that, even in a quest to convert the hardcore/crazy right-wing that Santorum would even consider pledging things like this. Not only will such a law never come to fruition but it makes a mockery of politics to even suggest such things. Call me a naive idealist if you will but I'd like to think that Presidential candidates would try and campaign on real issues, not fire and brimstone nonsense.
He's just trying to bait Romney. Nothing to see here.
I wonder what took them so long to crack down on pornography. It's been a while since the Prohibition got rid of all the alcohol. Maybe they were too exhausted from putting all those copyright violators behind bars. But since sharing of movies, music and books has been so successfully staunched recently, it seems to be time to tackle the next big thing. Go Santorum.
I wonder how conservatives would feel about something like reddit gonewild, which is still pron (well, just nudes), but has the distinction of clearly being consensual and positive for the women participating in it.
Well, that makes sure that half the men that previously would have voted for him will still pay lip service to him, but won't actually vote for him. He thoroughly misunderstands what voters actually want.
One of the most dangerous ideas in politics today is that "The truth lies somewhere in the middle", which is what allows lunatics such as this to be taken seriously.
Does the chiaroscuro effect in that photo come from a torchlight procession in front of his dais?
[deleted]
Well, I guess its time to get a bigger hard drive and start downloading as much as possible before July. Hooray for porn!
You gotta love how the comment thread on that site nests so deep it ends up like 10px wide.
Consider all the lawyer jobs that will be created!
This country is focusing on everything but our actual problems.
Santorum, I am sorry but what a Fking joke this man is.
If Santorum is elected president, I will throw up.
Another crazy Republican out to destroy our freedoms. What a loser.
From the title, it sounds like Santorum just lost (lol)
To all of you Democratic party muckers out there who have been registering as Republicans and voting for Santorum in primaries in the hopes that he will be a much weaker candidate against Obama (see, for example: http://tinyurl.com/DailyKOSClownShow).
Fuck. You.
That is all.
Fuck. You.
That is all.
Santorum has a microscopically thin but nonzero chance of winning the Republican primaries. To do so, either Romney has to all but disappear as a candidate or he has to do extremely well in the upcoming primaries. Even then, the most likely outcome is a "brokered convention", where literally anything is possible, up to and including nominating someone who isn't even running yet.
Santorum knows that he has to win the GOP base this way. And he'll never win the libertarianish part of the GOP base to begin with (they're voting for Ron Paul), nor will he win over the sane people (they're either voting for Romney or staying home in a fog of crippling depression). So his only chance is to maximize turnout from crazy, evangelical, right-wing loonies of the type rarely seen outside flyover country.
If he somehow wins the nomination, expect him to quietly forget half of these crazy promises. If he loses, his political career is over. So he has to go pretty crazy.