Sanatorum Pledges To Ban Porn

[porno jew]

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-joins...214900881.html

no difference between the parties, the two party scam and all that ....

[CYF]

[bean-aid]

Originally Posted by CYF

Is that a poopsicle?

[Barry-xlovecam]

Santorum booed off stage by college students

http://www.necn.com/01/05/12/Santoru...94&feedID=4206

["W]hat I'm asking you is how do you justify your belief, based on these morals that you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry can't," asked a college student.

"Well what about three men?" Santorum questioned. ...

This guy have a secret plan or is he just a total fucktard ?

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Santorum booed off stage by college students

http://www.necn.com/01/05/12/Santoru...94&feedID=4206

This guy have a secret plan or is he just a total fucktard ?

fucktard who is wooing the sizable and powerful medieval religious kook base of the republican party.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by porno jew

fucktard who is wooing the sizable and powerful medieval religious kook base of the republican party.

I can only hope he scares the voters away with that lunacy ...

[Phoenix]

haha...man it must be weird to have actual possible leaders concerned with such silly drivel

country is going down the shitter cause the thieves are robbing everyone blind...but anal froth here is focused on what two people do in their bedroom..lol

[Jakez]

This guy definitely likes it in the ass.

[lucas131]

what will you do, you will be just o jew

[tony286]

A rightie gets in other than mitt plan on pain.

[Socks]

The reddit reposts are so strong here lately.

Article date: Sat, Jul 9, 2011

But it was posted to Reddit today.. sooo...

[raymor]

You mean like COPA, CDA, and CDA II? Oops, no, that was Clinton. The "marriage vow" which only Bachman and Santorum signed, makes no mention of Clinton style censorship. In fact, the only mention of porn is that it says women should be protected from human trafficking, slavery, and coercion into prostitution and pornography.


Damn, if he wins we'll have to have WILLING models. No more human trafficking for forced prostitution and pornography.

The other republican candidates chose not to sign it because it tried to conver loyalty to ones spouse, commentary about the awful effects of slavery, human trafficking, and gay marriage in a convoluted way. They would have done better to cover one issue at a time.

[2ndxachrm]

it will never happen, both the banning of porn and him or michelle becoming president.

[BFT3K]

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by raymor

You mean like COPA, CDA, and CDA II? Oops, no, that was Clinton. The "marriage vow" which only Bachman and Santorum signed, makes no mention of Clinton style censorship. In fact, the only mention of porn is that it says women should be protected from human trafficking, slavery, and coercion into prostitution and pornography.


Damn, if he wins we'll have to have WILLING models. No more human trafficking for forced prostitution and pornography.

The other republican candidates chose not to sign it because it tried to conver loyalty to ones spouse, commentary about the awful effects of slavery, human trafficking, and gay marriage in a convoluted way. They would have done better to cover one issue at a time.

Yeah, yeah...Let me ask you this: Which administrations(plural) succesfully prosecuted and imprisoned pornographers? Which administration dismantled the obscenity division of the justice department?

How anyone can be involved in porn and call themselves a Republican is beyond me.


http://www.mainjustice.com/2011/05/0...to-fight-porn/

[raymor]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

Yeah, yeah...Let me ask you this: Which administrations(plural) succesfully prosecuted and imprisoned pornographers?

Clinton averaged six per year for the four years I checked. Bush, three per year. We'll let Clinton's deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder, explain it to you:

Originally Posted by Eric Holder, Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, 1998

Priority should be given to cases involving large-scale distributors who realize substantial income from multistate operations (brazzers, twisty's) and cases in which there is evidence of organized crim involvement. However, prosecution of cases involving relatively small distributors can have a deterrent effect and would dispel an notion that obscenity distributors are insulated from prosecution their operations fail to exceed a predetermined size or if they fragment their business into small-scale operations. Therefore, prosecution of such distributors also may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

You can ignore the facts that don't fit with what you wish were true, or you can learn from them, adjusting your opinions to reflect your new knowledge. Facts are stubborn things, though.

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by raymor

Clinton averaged six per year for the four years I checked. Bush, three per year. We'll let Clinton's deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder, explain it to you:

You're dodging the questions.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by Shotsie

You're dodging the questions.

You asked which administrations prosecuted obscenity. I answered with the number of obscenity prosecutions from each administration. I can't imagine a more complete and accurate answer. I suppose if I made up some complete BS I could give you an answer you'd like more.

The only way a man can remain in everlasting ignorance is to refuse to learn from new information.

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by raymor

You asked which administrations prosecuted obscenity. I answered with the number of obscenity prosecutions from each administration. I can't imagine a more complete and accurate answer. I suppose if I made up some complete BS I could give you an answer you'd like more.

The only way a man can remain in everlasting ignorance is to refuse to learn from new information.

Okay, so you only dodged one question. The other one you maybe misread? I asked which administration succesfully prosecuted and imprisoned pornographers.

[raymor]

By the way, Shotsie, that was a great question or two. The answer might surprise some people and that's exactly the mark of a great question. We grow only from those that surprise us.

As to whether Clinton's bulk prosecutions were more successful or Bush's more selective prosecutions, I don't know. I know both had some convictions and both had some thrown out, but I don't know the ratios. Before we look that up, it might be interesting to consider what it will mean. I can imagine two ways of looking at it:

a) The president with the highest success rate locked up the most people.
b) The president with the LOWEST success rate went after people who weren't actually guilty, according to the courts.

If president Jones prosecuted a guy for six years, through three appeals, and the courts kept saying what the guy did was protected under the first amendment, is that president bad for going after innocent people, or good for failing to succeed in his attempts to lock up pornographers?

Does the success rate of the obscenity prosecutions mean anything, or is the fact that Clinton tried to lock up twice as many as Bush tried to the most telling number?

[mikesouth]

What should be evident to people here is that there is virtually NO difference between the two parties, the objective of both parties is bigger government is better government. More and more people are staring to realize that fact, which explans why every election the Libertarian party gets more votes, not enough mind you but do hope that enough people will realize it before this country finds itself in a real revolution

Libertarian principles are the only thing that will save our republic.

[OY]

Santorum also said a few days ago that USA was threatened by Iran, Al-Qaeda and POLAND - - - LOL - - - pulled a Palin!

[raymor]

Originally Posted by OY

Santorum also said a few days ago that USA was threatened by Iran, Al-Qaeda and POLAND - - - LOL - - -

He probably just got tongue tied. He probably meant to say the US is threatened by Iran, al-Quaeda, and Palin.

[Sophie Delancey]

Originally Posted by beaner

Is that a poopsicle?

Naw, just a dick covered with his own santorum. Mmmm... Google problem.

[bronco67]

For any anti-porn bill to pass, it would have to be signed by a group of men -- and 100% of men like porn. So there's nothing to worry about.

[Redrob]

Republican social conservatives might rally around Santorum as their choice just because the don't trust Romney.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by 2ndxachrm

it will never happen, both the banning of porn and him or michelle becoming president.

It's a shame that one of the two parties from the most powerful country in the World can't come up with a better candidate for the top job.

Look at the predecessor, GWB. Not the sharpest tool in the box by any means. Clinton was, but the Republicans decided to hamstring him for getting a BJ in the Oval Office. The French don't give a shit, the English are a bit hung up but not that much, Czech. Well one of the last Prime Ministers wives had shares in a brothel.

All that matters is his ability to put together a team that can run the country.

McCain & Palin. An old mans heart beat away from a hick running the country. Yet people voted for them.

Bush, took the US into an illegal war on a lie. And he got a second term.

Sanatorium. He's got a snow balls chance in hell of stopping porn. Unless he decides to rewrite the Constitution on Freedom of Speech. Not that any man surfing porn sites will vote for him.

That will cost him his chances. While they cheer, the men are worried the idiot will take away their free porn. Anyone got a guess on over 18 in America surfing free porn sites?

Seriously America, can't you do better? Obama at least is bright.

[vsex]

Originally Posted by porno jew

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-joins...214900881.html

no difference between the parties, the two party scam and all that ....

I like the author!

[GregE]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Republican social conservatives might rally around Santorum as their choice just because the don't trust Romney.

Why wouldn't they? The crap Sanatorum spews is right up their alley.

Hmmm... maybe I should have phrased that a bit differently.

Anyway, the point being that birds of a feather flock together.

The good news here is that a headcase like Sanatorum wouldn't stand a chance in the general election.

That is, unless he sneaks in as someone's vice presidential selection like Palin almost did.

That's the real danger

[Nembrionic]

Thank God they made up .xxx, makes it a lot easier to ban shit!


Fucking zealous assholes.

[V_RocKs]

Poop....

[onwebcam]

Just another reason to vote Ron Paul!

[MaDalton]

there's no way any of the rep candidates will become president.

[BFT3K]

The "Jesus" candidate discusses his views on health care. Apparently Jesus hates sick people. Good look with that, Frothy!

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...rge-them-more/

[keysync]

I'd rather vote for Obama than this fucking cave dwelling idiot. And I fucking CAN"T STAND Obama...

[pornmasta]

What's the traffic of these tube sites ?

[2intense]

Originally Posted by CYF

[ThunderBalls]

Originally Posted by keysync

I'd rather vote for Obama than this fucking cave dwelling idiot. And I fucking CAN"T STAND Obama...

All republicans are cave dwelling idiots.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

[INDENT]This guy have a secret plan or is he just a total fucktard ?

I'm pretty sure being a complete fucktards is the GOP political plan.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by raymor

Clinton averaged six per year for the four years I checked. Bush, three per year. We'll let Clinton's deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder, explain it to you:



You can ignore the facts that don't fit with what you wish were true, or you can learn from them, adjusting your opinions to reflect your new knowledge. Facts are stubborn things, though.

Really name them? Because I remember the meese commission under reagan and nixon going after deep throat the movie. Bush fucking up 2257 and max also firing AG's for not going after adult porn because they saw it as a waste. Please tell me about the clinton crack down funny most on the right credit clinton's lax attitude towards adult porn as one of the reasons why it exploded on the net.

Also a note to the ron paul lovers fed law protects porn as free speech it goes back to the states not good.

[tony286]

Why do you think most of the porn guys reagan and before were dems? The problem is most in adult on the net dont know porns history.

[tony286]

moralityinmedia.org/full_article.php?article_no=171
Conclusion

We can only surmise why President Clinton turned a blind eye towards the growing obscenity problem, despite his 1992 pledge. Whatever the explanations, the last eight years have indeed been a great time to be in the porn business.
During the Reagan and Bush administrations,the Justice Department successfully prosecuted child pornographers and large-scale purveyors of obscenity; and, in the process of effectively enforcing the obscenity laws, collected millions of dollars in fines and forfeitures to offset the costs of enforcement.

What was accomplished during the Reagan/Bush years can be accomplished again, but it will take a president and attorney general who understand the harms that pornography causes and who mean business about enforcing federal obscenity laws.

[Brujah]

One thing I really wish is that Republicans in general would not just accept every other douchebag like Santorum just because he is also a Republican or claims to be. All Republicans are not alike guys, and you don't have to defend or support all of them. It's ok to acknowledge that he's a douchebag. There are plenty of other decent Republicans around that you can support without betraying your party.

[porno jew]

Originally Posted by Brujah

One thing I really wish is that Republicans in general would not just accept every other douchebag like Santorum just because he is also a Republican or claims to be. All Republicans are not alike guys, and you don't have to defend or support all of them. It's ok to acknowledge that he's a douchebag. There are plenty of other decent Republicans around that you can support without betraying your party.

a large and powerful section of the republican party love candidates like santorum. impossible to deny that.

[porno jew]

funny how some republicans delude themselves that their party is some kind of open minded and hip south park republican party when the reality is a large part of it is made up of stone stupid backwards mouth breathers with medieval worldviews.

[a.miles]

Rare are the politicians who give statements that truly reflect their personal and deep believes. They usually say what their audience wants to hear.
Politicians on campaigns have people doing polls, and checking stats and number to win. If the stats say that they are missing votes in a particular area, they go visiting it, if the stats show that they are loosing a certain special interest group they then release a statement to please this group, etc.
It's no longer politics by leadership it's more of tailor made politics.

It's not the first time we hear a statement such as Santorum's. He probably is missing some votes in the ultra conservative church groups and want to appeal to them.
Several have said something like that but never made it.
Unfortunately, only the good seller of BS will be elected

[LAJ]

I hope he gets the nomination... no way could he win.

[PornMD]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Santorum booed off stage by college students

http://www.necn.com/01/05/12/Santoru...94&feedID=4206

This guy have a secret plan or is he just a total fucktard ?

["W]hat I'm asking you is how do you justify your belief, based on these morals that you have about all men being created equal when two men who want to marry can't," asked a college student.

"Well what about three men?" Santorum questioned. ...

This would have been my response to that:

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by BFT3K

The "Jesus" candidate discusses his views on health care. Apparently Jesus hates sick people. Good look with that, Frothy!

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...rge-them-more/

It's very clear to me.

He's pro life and a caring Christian. So long as the Insurance companies, that fund him, can make money.

Nothing confusing about that message. </sarcasm>

Not to you BFT3K, to this ass wipe,

[Cherry7]

When the "New Scientist" writes about how backward and poor the candidates are, how anti science, backward, fundamentalist and just plain stupid they are. It makes one worry about one of the most advanced countries in the World.

Not only third world countries have crazy governments like Iran and Israel, but we now have Poland with its Maria cult, Italy haven been run by the "Joker" and now in administration,

And after Obama the choice of a bunch of Republican loonies.