• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Santorum gone too far

Dancing David said:
A municipality which bans the sale of pornography (Greenville, IL) and so people have to buy Playboy outside city limits would have a tough sell. They could not license a cable providor that carries pornography. But I don't think they could effect IP/TCP distribution or satellite dish service.
Click to expand...

Dancing David said:
Well Greenville also had no liquor sales at the time as well, you had to buy your liquor in Vandalia
Click to expand...
my little town in IL still bans porn and liquor sales (although just sales, not possession or consumption, so you just have to buy it out of town)

cable providers have to block porn channels to the towns residents, and for the longest time satellite TV was banned (they said it was because the dishes were an eyesore, but i think it was because they couldnt arrange to block porn channels)

also, nearly every business has to be closed on sunday, although last year they started allowing grocery stores to be open
 
I'm glad things are going so well in America that we have no real problems here, that Santorum can start chasing these kinds of ghosts at will. Maybe once he actually makes it to the White House, (about the time there's inclement weather in the Netherworld), he'll discover there's a lot more going on in the world to dominate his attention.
 
Policenaut said:
I haven't really paid much attention to what he's been saying because I don't believe he has a chance of winning but this is nuts. Santorum wants to ban porn. As far as I'm concerned "obscenity law" runs against the first amendment.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/14/v...-catch-internet-porn-viewers-with-pants-down/

You can take our lives, but you can never take our porn.
Click to expand...

I'm done with this effer. (god Fantasizer. :rolleyes: )

Newt was good for a bit, looked like he'd fight the good fight vs. Obama, then got behind and turned into a whiny biatch.

Perry, gov. of gigantic Texas, should have been good in theory. Then reality set in.

Santorum had some interesting things, then seems to be trying his best to put more feet in his mouth than Newt and Joe Biden on their best days combined.

That leaves a guy who is more reminiscent of Bob Dole and John McCain than of Reagan (or, hell, Nixon in his glory days or even Bush, Jr.)
 
Tatyana said:
?????????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...


Sounds if someone is high on the miracle fruit juice de jour. AKA, Noni Juice.

A quote from the Great and Wonderful Doctor of Oz -- "Dr Oz did a taste test of Pure Noni Juice and said it tastes extremely bitter"

Sounds as if it may have the effect of making its drinkers somewhat bitter, too. :D
 
On the West Coast, Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt, who has spent decades battling obscenity laws and politicians who have tried to shut him down, said he's confident that Santorum won't get in his way either.

"Whether it's Newt offering $2 gasoline or Santorum wanting to ban pornography or whatever else he's doing, they're making these promises and these threats, and they're really empty and meaningless," Flynt told Yahoo News. "I don't think he will be much of a contender if he gets the nomination, but at the same time I don't think he will."
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...rick-santorum-banning-business-192050828.html
 
Roadtoad said:
I'm glad things are going so well in America that we have no real problems here, that Santorum can start chasing these kinds of ghosts at will. Maybe once he actually makes it to the White House, (about the time there's inclement weather in the Netherworld), he'll discover there's a lot more going on in the world to dominate his attention.
Click to expand...

I predict a new wave of pornography, much of it with a presidental theme. Titles include: Dick Santorum, Oval Orifice, Oral Office, All The President's Men, etc.
 
Actually, that raises a question about Santorum's personal beliefs and morals. We know he dislikes birth control, and we know he's against pornography. Does that mean he'd find bareback porn less objectionable to responsible porn?
 
Scott Sommers said:
Yes, yes...I know the JREF game. I'm a little surprised this should really need sourcing, but here goes anyway...

Fortunately, there is a hard to find website called Wikipedia that has all this unbelievable information about the porn industry and STDs that's really surprising...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic_film_actor#Pornographic_actors_and_STDs
and here for more information related to AIDS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_in_the_pornographic_film_industry
AIM, the indursty police organization is run by "Doctor" Sharon Mitchell. "Doctor" Mitchell is not really a doctor of anything...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_Mitchell

At least 16 previously unpublicized HIV cases in porn film performers, public health officials say

Porn actress tests positive for HIV

More porn HIV cases disclosed

This is American porn, which is among the best regulated - or at least most heavily regulated - in the world.

Czech Pornstars Caught Syphilis

I could go on and on and on and on about this on. But I kind of figure it's common sense.

What's my point? Porn is a public health issue that needs to be adequately addressed. The fact that Santorum can talk about it like this points to the monopoly on discussion by fringe groups. This has been allowed to happen because 'proper society' keeps referring to porn as a personal choice. It is not anymore a personal choice than the inspection of food products or vaccination.

Or I could just quote my original post,
Click to expand...
Let me make sure i'm understanding you. Your objection is not the existence of porn in itself (or so-called "obscenity") but the state of the porn industry in terms of proper safety precautions and content regulation? If so, I don't see what controversial about that. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable concern to me (independent of Santorums concerns with "obscenity").
 
Last edited:
Nasty Neil said:
And FYI, MANY conseratives do NOT want to control others, they DO want small govermen and to control gov. spending.
Click to expand...

Tricky said:
Hell, I want small govermen too. Those big ones scare the crap out of me. Are they all on steroids, or what?
Click to expand...
What are govermen? They sound kind of creepy: "My sister was walking home from work and one of those govermen jumped out and grabbed her." Or, "It wasn't till them govermen showed up that we started losing all them cattle."

Which reminds me...what is a conserative?


defaultdotxbe said:
also, nearly every business has to be closed on sunday, although last year they started allowing grocery stores to be open
Click to expand...
You're kidding - you still have blue laws? Even Texas gave those up in the 1970s. Doesn't that cramp the style of those churchgoers who want to spend Sunday afternoons at Wal-Mart?
 
Hi Ladewig

You said: "Are you talking about the three tenets that appear in Foley's book: Limited government, unapologetic U.S. sovereignty, and constitutional originalism."

NO, Sorry, I Know nothing about either Foley or his book.

Then you said:

"I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or snarky. I really don't know the three tenets of the Tea party. To what are you referring?"

I did NOT think you were being either 'sarcastic or snarky' and, THANK You for asking:

These are the Tea Parties 3 Core Values

1. Fiscal Responsibility

2. Constitutionally Limited Government

3. Free Markets

Please, any anti-tea party people, explain to me just how any informed, rational and intelligent person could NOT support the Tea Parties 3 Core Values?

Ladewig, if you want more detailed info on them and'or on who make up a lot of the Tea Party supporters , Please e-mail me at:

religionsucks@webtv.net

LAST, if you want to know why the odds are pretty high I have more of a clue about what is going on then those #W@*%&& who give me crap, please go the WELCOME New Members Thread, Page 20, #761

Thanks

Nasty Neil
"Airborne!"
 
Nasty Neil said:
These are the Tea Parties 3 Core Values

1. Fiscal Responsibility

2. Constitutionally Limited Government

3. Free Markets

Please, any anti-tea party people, explain to me just how any informed, rational and intelligent person could NOT support the Tea Parties 3 Core Values?
Click to expand...
I'm not anti-tea party. I like the ideals, the problem is that the devil lives in the definitions and details. I find most people define the terms to fit their world view.
 
Elizabeth I said:
You're kidding - you still have blue laws? Even Texas gave those up in the 1970s. Doesn't that cramp the style of those churchgoers who want to spend Sunday afternoons at Wal-Mart?
Click to expand...
not really, i think the reason they are still around is because its a smallish town, but in a dense suburban area, so its not really an inconvenience to go to another town. thats actually where the wal-mart is anyway lol. since it doesnt really interfere with anyone life theres no push to repeal the laws. what little pressure there is comes from the businesses, but there arent many of those either, just 2 grocery stores and a few fast food places and gas stations. the rest are small mom and pop businesses owned by the same dutch protestants who wanted the blue laws in the first place

when the fast food and gas stations moved into town (about 20 years ago) they pushed to be open sundays, so the compromise was the fast food drive through could be open, but not the lobby, and the gas stations could sell gas, but nothing else
 
Nasty Neil said:
While Dr. Solomon started our being very skeptical he (unlike Randi) had the brains to take the time to really look into it, This resulted in his writing many books on it, and in his believing in it as much, or even more than I do.
Click to expand...
Peer reviewed, replicated studies?

YOU SHOULD GET A PRIZE FOR MAKING A STATEMENT THAT STUPID!
Click to expand...
No, that honor belongs to someone else.
 
Hello Randfan,

To ME

A Political Party either ARE Fiscal Responsible, OR, it is NOT!

A Government either IS Constitutionally Limited Government, OR, it is NOT!

Markets ARE either Free, OR they are not.

And most intelligent people can see the truth for themselves.

(Not, very sadly, they necessarily will!)
 
Nasty Neil said:
A Political Party either ARE Fiscal Responsible, OR, it is NOT!
Click to expand...
Fallacy, false dichotomy.

A Government either IS Constitutionally Limited Government, OR, it is NOT!
Click to expand...
Fallacy, false dichotomy.

Markets ARE either Free, OR they are not.
Click to expand...
Fallacy, false dichotomy.

False Dichotomy said:
A false dichotomy is typically used in an argument to force your opponent into an extreme position -- by making the assumption that there are only two positions.
Click to expand...
AKA black and white thinking.
 
Juniversal said:
Let me make sure i'm understanding you. Your objection is not the existence of porn in itself (or so-called "obscenity") but the state of the porn industry in terms of proper safety precautions and content regulation? If so, I don't see what controversial about that. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable concern to me (independent of Santorums concerns with "obscenity").
Click to expand...

Yes. This is exactly what I'm concerned about. And other than this is the JREF where people argue with themselves, I don't see this as a controversy either.

fuelair said:
I may be the only person here who follows/partially agrees with your view on this - and I will go so far as to say I actually up to a point agree -as in I think too many studies are toward the moral/victimization/disease/medical side and not enough to the reasons for the broad success of the business side and it's relationships to other media worldwide.

We disagree however on the medical for sure though: porn is no more a hotbed of protection/preservation of STDs than is your local chapter of Little Sisters of the Poor.

Yes, the persons acting in adult materials do have more contacts than most civilians but they are regularly checked for STDs and some registies make that information available to their colleagues. I suspect that prostitution (in the US), rape and unprotected sex - including heavily with minors (Africa/others) and the like have far more liklihood of sufficient expansion for dangerous mutations in the ferocity and spreadability of STD than the first world (non-prostitution )sex industry.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of how this is happening.
Porn Clinic AIM Closes For Good: Valley-Based Industry Scrambles to Find New STD Testing System

However, this has historically been the position of the porn industry, as well. Much of the regulation that the industry refers to has amounted to self-regulation. I don't know if you read the links on AIDS and Sharon Mitchell. Mitchell does not really have a PhD. The organization she uses to monitor disease in the porn industry, Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation (AIM), was a private foundation set up to control access to the porn industry and not protect public health. Mitchell and AIM have repeatedly identified people who are HIV positive and kept their identity secret from public health officials. The Wikipedia entry for AIM appears written by someone sympathetic to the industry since the facts in it do not correspond with those reported in the LA Times.

The porn industry is rife with prostitution - and I don't mean that prostitutes and escorts also work in porn. You can 'date' a porn star.

A lot of porn stars are not hard to “date”. It is expensive. Websites even gave figures on how much it costs. It is also known that some porn stars prostitute on the side. You can even book them through an agency via a website for “VIP Members”. Lela Star was listed at $2,000 an hour and it said, “Both. Full Service”. One porn star was $2,500 an hour. They will come to your hotel in specific cities. Prostitution? I think “Prostate Massage” might say yes. Champagne ready before they arrive is required. And, tips are appreciated. No, the website will not be published. As far as is known, it is not required to be reported to the police. Sure they know about it already. “Dating” seems to be way more profitable than making a porn video. And, no taxes if cash unless they are honest.
Click to expand...

Working in porn is dangerous and significant numbers of porn workers have been murdered and subjected to other forms of violence.

I don't know if there are worse places to work. fuelair might be right that prostitution is even more threatening of a health issue. I don't really understand the details of this. Nor do I know how to link it to Rick Santorum and the topic of this thread.

Just to make sure I'm on topic...Rick Santorum is able to talk about porn the way he does because there is no proper scientific understanding of the topic. His discourse is logically on the same plane as 9/11 conspiracy. Ron Paul gets beat up on his links to conspiracy logic all the time because there is a proper scientific response to 9/11 Truth crap. Rick Santorum can look like a public crusader rather than the nut bar he is because there's very little proper information about porn and instead, he can construct an argument about its moral destructiveness and not be that far off from what is still being said even in the research community.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom