# Internet pornography could conceivably become a thing of the past if Rick Santorum is



## Blake1970 (Mar 15, 2012)

Hey dickhead leave my porn alone

Rick Santorum | Internet Pornography | Vigorous Crackdown | The Daily Caller


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 15, 2012)

Ahh yes... And Obama is trying to control too much. 

How is porn even an issue considering all the other problems we have right now? There really should be some kind of aptitude test before someone's even allowed to talk about running for President.


----------



## wlfers (Mar 15, 2012)

what about videos I have of myself??


----------



## Goatchrist (Mar 15, 2012)

Now he lost every male voter...


----------



## synrgy (Mar 15, 2012)

Lamentably, this is exactly the kind of politics we can expect moving forward. When McCain selected Palin as his running mate, the proverbial Pandora's Box was irrevocably opened. There's no turning back, now.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 15, 2012)

... Fuck


----------



## Edika (Mar 15, 2012)

Conservative candidates are the source of laughter and joy for people around the globe. However they are the source of terror and panic because there is big possibility that you guys might elect them!


----------



## Xaios (Mar 15, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Lamentably, this is exactly the kind of politics we can expect moving forward. When McCain selected Palin as his running mate, the proverbial Pandora's Box was irrevocably opened. There's no turning back, now.



True, but Sarah Palin had to actually step into the spotlight before everyone realized just how batshit crazy she was. I remember when she was first announced as the VP candidate. This was the sequence of events:

1) Who the fuck is she?
2) Holy crap, John McCain chose a milf to be his running mate! We can look forward to a new genre of porn if they get elected!
3) She seems to be a hardliner on integrity.

Honestly, almost all the information available at the time said she was a great choice. It wasn't until after she started gaining major exposure that people realized, "holy crap, this chick is a psycho."


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Mar 15, 2012)

Edika said:


> Conservative candidates are the source of laughter and joy for people around the globe. However they are the source of terror and panic because there is big possibility that you guys might elect them!



^
This is one of the best and most frightening races to be a Democrat. This race is just getting so stupid, it's so hilarious!

Then again, I think I'll be heading across the border if one gets elected.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 15, 2012)

Then it's apparently a good think I catch on late, bc I never saw anything about Sarah Palin that suggested we should be preparing ourselves for greatness... 



dragonblade629 said:


> ^
> This is one of the best and most frightening races to be a Democrat. This race is just getting so stupid, it's so hilarious!



I don't find it funny at all, but I see what you mean.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Mar 15, 2012)

Rick Santorum looks like the kind of gentleman who frequently enjoys the pleasures of tentacle anal rape pornography.

Santorum

Like a sir.


----------



## Sicarius (Mar 15, 2012)

Dude is pandering, like all the candidates.

He's trying to say whatever he can to get elected, they've always done this. Appeal to a group's morality to gain their support. 

The same way conservative news panders to people's fears about the economy, how many people were convinced that we were careening out of control towards the 2nd Great Depression because of the misinformation spread by the news outlets, and still think we are now, even though the recession has started to turn around?

He won't beat Romney, and Romney probably won't beat Obama. Our porn is safe, people.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 15, 2012)

I'm really not sure where all the fear of conservatives comes from?

I'm conservative on some things and quite libertarian on many things,
but I've not the least bit of fear of them cracking down on things.

I've always done what I want regaurdless as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Don't care if it's accepted, discouraged, encouraged or of it's legal status.

It just seems kind of un-metal IMO to be fearful of authority.

I know most of you aren't fearful and just don't like them, which is great and fine.

Just do what you think is right and disregaurd the BS unjust laws.


----------



## Origin (Mar 15, 2012)

Porn will NEVER be eradicated from the internet. It was a startlingly integral part of its birth, and it's an enormous aid to its economic viability. Without porn, it's hard to see how the internet would be the way it is today in terms of its ubiquity. You can NOT win a fight against something that widespread, that there are that many copies of, that that many people use on a daily basis.  Dick-waving and nothing more. Well...also, he's a fucking psychopath. BUT. Yeah.


----------



## MFB (Mar 15, 2012)

Does anyone know how much the porn industry makes? 

Couple that along with all the legal bullshit they already deal with and you can imagine the level of lawyers and such they hire, since they kind of want to ...win, I believe is the word? Yes, that's correct. So, you can only imagine the potential of the lobbyists they'd hire to stop this shit from happening.


----------



## Xaios (Mar 15, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I'm really not sure where all the fear of conservatives comes from?
> 
> I'm conservative on some things and quite libertarian on many things,
> but I've not the least bit of fear of them cracking down on things.



I'm also a conservative, but it's not simply the fact of them being conservative that scares most people in this particular instance. It's the fact that all the Republican hopefuls are *batshit fucking insane*. You've got Santorum the moral crusader, Moonunit Gingrich and Ron Paul the Libertarian Superhero. The fact that Mitt Romney looks practically tame compared to the rest of them scares the shit out of me.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 15, 2012)

Xaios said:


> I'm also a conservative, but it's not simply the fact of them being conservative that scares most people in this particular instance. It's the fact that all the Republican hopefuls are *batshit fucking insane*. You've got Santorum the moral crusader, Moonunit Gingrich and Ron Paul the Libertarian Superhero. The fact that Mitt Romney looks practically tame compared to the rest of them scares the shit out of me.


 
They all seem very tame to me . Quite possibly I'm the psycho .

edit; It's not like any of them are Pol Pot. Although Ron Paul has a major problem with starting a new sentence before finishing the last one lol. Maybe he's been smoking pol pot.


----------



## Ill-Gotten James (Mar 15, 2012)

This is what I think of when I hear Rick Santorum. 

Urban Dictionary: Rick Santorum


----------



## pink freud (Mar 15, 2012)

First attacking female contraception and then going after porn?

The dude must be focusing on the genderless demographic...


----------



## SenorDingDong (Mar 15, 2012)

Santorum is a poo.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 15, 2012)

JWGriebel said:


> Santorum is a poo.



Close, but not exactly.

*edit* Ninja'd, which I'd have known if I'd bothered to read before posting. Bad me!


----------



## nojyeloot (Mar 15, 2012)

This is excellent news. Thanks OP.

EDIT: I for one (as a married man) welcome less of a relentless onslaught that takes my attention away from my wife. I'm all for this.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 15, 2012)

nojyeloot said:


> This is excellent news. Thanks OP.
> 
> EDIT: I for one (as a married man) welcome less of a relentless onslaught that takes my attention away from my wife. I'm all for this.



Blasphemy!


----------



## Pooluke41 (Mar 15, 2012)

nojyeloot said:


> This is excellent news. Thanks OP.
> 
> EDIT: I for one (as a married man) welcome less of a relentless onslaught that takes my attention away from my wife. I'm all for this.




Someones got a grudge against pornhub... 

EDIT: I forgot the Winking face....


----------



## Sicarius (Mar 15, 2012)

Pooluke41 said:


> Someone's wife is a little jealous of pornhub...


fix'd


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 15, 2012)

Pooluke41's trolling, guys. His argument against it is that he no longer wants to use it, which if was the real case he'd simply stop.


----------



## matt397 (Mar 15, 2012)

Fuck this guy. He's an idiot of epic proportions. There's so much going on in this world right now an this guy wants to focus on porn, gay sex and preaching religion in the classroom and workplace. Totally sounds (and looks) like the kind of super conservative guy that spends his weekends in a gay brothel bound in leather gacking on cock wearing a buttplug screaming for daddy...


----------



## wlfers (Mar 15, 2012)

^ They focus disproportionately on social issues that are less consequential to the overall health and welfare of the nation because the issues have been painted black and white and sell themselves.

Think something like foreign policy, and how many issues on a microscopic level weave into a giant worldwide problem. 

When a portion of the country already agrees with your social platform, then why would you take the risky course of proposing a solution to a complex issue that has more variables than the everyday voter wants to learn about, when you can just market yourself as the champion of the linear values to the people that already agree with you?

edit: what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is that candidates don't want to attack issues that have more than 2 options.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Mar 15, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> Pooluke41's trolling, guys. His argument against it is that he no longer wants to use it, which if was the real case he'd simply stop.



I wasn't trolling..

I was trying to be funny. But failed. Completely.


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 15, 2012)

^ Dreadfully sorry, nothing kills a joke like explaining it. It's hard to get tone of voice from text.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Mar 15, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> ^ Dreadfully sorry, nothing kills a joke like explaining it. It's hard to get tone of voice from text.



It's ok, I am Socially retarded...


----------



## Explorer (Mar 15, 2012)

nojyeloot said:


> I for one (as a married man) welcome less of a relentless onslaught that takes my attention away from my wife. I'm all for this.



So... if you can't control yourself, the government should bring everyone down to the level of those without self control? 

I'm sorry, but this sounds familiar. I've known people who talk about how people need religion in order to be "moral," and who can't understand how someone can be a good person without it. 

Dude, if you actually wanted to be free of the onslaught, only cruise the internet with your wife sitting nearby, so she can see the screen. That will get you the close observation you need to do what you view as the right thing. 

----

BTW, I came home from work, answered personal email, came to SS.org, will soon check the results of some searches I have running for gear, and then will do some free weights and ride the exercise bike before going to bed. I haven't been blasted by any onslaughts of porn.

My point?

*I suspect you're looking for that stuff. No onslaught involved.* I welcome you PMing me legitimate sites which suddenly started spamming you with porn. I'm calling BS on that until such sites are provided.


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 16, 2012)

^ He was facetiously making the same point as you, but it didn't come across very well.


----------



## -42- (Mar 16, 2012)

Explorer, at tad too thorough at times.

In regards to the OP, hopefully the dismal performance of their presidential hopefuls will get the Republican party to shift the party line, at the very least regarding social issues.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 16, 2012)

-42- said:


> Explorer, at tad too thorough at times.



*laugh* Blame it on my CEO. Whenever I casually bring up a study or supporting evidence, he's sure to ask me to present it. 

I had to invest 20 minutes to defend the idea that whoever frames the conversation will have an advantage. I had to do some digging to find polls and research regarding how many people continued to believe in Iraqi WMD even after news stories and even the Bush administration had refuted it. 

it's not always like that, though. At one point, he dragged me into our CFO's office, closed the door, and asked me to explain papal infallibility. Even after I was done, the questions kept coming. "Wait.. what did you just say? What does 'ex cathedra' mean? More importantly, why do you know so much crap? Does your brain ever itch?" *laugh*


----------



## Malkav (Mar 16, 2012)

I'm at work so I can't find the picture, but what we need here is that image of Dr Cox (Scrubs) and that legendary line.

"If you ban pornography from the internet all you'll be left with is one site and it'll be called BRING BACK THE PORN.com"

Or something like that...

If someone could find that image it would be awesome, I'm just hesitant about googling Dr Cox internet pornography at work


----------



## Deadnightshade (Mar 16, 2012)

These kind of campaigns lividly reminiscent classic scenes from [insert parody cartoon/movie/whatever here] ,were the politician ,while on backstage, reassures [his friend/CEO of a big company he's secretly affiliated with etc] that he'll win the elections by spewing the usual crap about child pornography/porn/abortion etc.


----------



## Demiurge (Mar 16, 2012)

Now now, to be fair, maybe Santorum's plan is to get everyone in America laid.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 16, 2012)

athawulf said:


> When a portion of the country already agrees with your social platform, then why would you take the risky course of proposing a solution to a complex issue that has more variables than the everyday voter wants to learn about...?



Because that's EXACTLY what you're elected to do... And you're doing no service to the people by proceeding any other way. In fact, it's an insult to our intelligence. Sadly, the majority allow this type of bullshit to work.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 16, 2012)

Demiurge said:


> Now now, to be fair, maybe Santorum's plan is to get everyone in America laid.



He's getting rid of porn, not shower heads, vibrators and washing machines with old shoes inside em... Women will still find ways to avoid the ones of us they want to avoid...


----------



## Demiurge (Mar 16, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> He's getting rid of porn, not shower heads, vibrators and washing machines with old shoes inside em... Women will still find ways to avoid the ones of us they want to avoid...



I expect to see a Key Party candidate run in 2016.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Mar 16, 2012)

Porn in the USA: Conservatives are biggest consumers - science-in-society - 27 February 2009 - New Scientist


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY (Mar 16, 2012)

good thing iv saved a couple hundred pictures and videos


----------



## Church2224 (Mar 16, 2012)

Xaios said:


> I'm also a conservative, but it's not simply the fact of them being conservative that scares most people in this particular instance. It's the fact that all the Republican hopefuls are *batshit fucking insane*. You've got Santorum the moral crusader, Moonunit Gingrich and Ron Paul the Libertarian Superhero. The fact that Mitt Romney looks practically tame compared to the rest of them scares the shit out of me.



This^

I am staunchly conservative and I laugh at all of them. Even fellow conservatives I know don;t like any of them


----------



## XEN (Mar 16, 2012)

Porn destroys marriage like dessert ruins dinner.


----------



## synrgy (Mar 16, 2012)

^^Which is precisely why the primaries to date have been such a circus. Nobody seems to *like* any of the candidates; most of the votes seem to be based upon which of the candidates the voter thinks will have the best chance of beating Obama in the general election, which of course changes every time a different state picks a different front runner..

I imagine they probably feel a lot like I felt back when Kerry was apparently the best thing the Dems could put up against Dubya. 

Interesting side note: during the Bush/Kerry election, I remember seeing Barack Obama appear on The Daily Show. At the end of his interview (his first on the show, to my knowledge) I remember clearly, turning to the girl I was dating at the time and declaring "That guy is gonna be the President some day." When I said "some day", I kinda meant like, 10-20 years down the line. I could have never predicted it would have been the very next election.


----------



## XEN (Mar 16, 2012)

synrgy said:


> Interesting side note: during the Bush/Kerry election, I remember seeing Barack Obama appear on The Daily Show. At the end of his interview (his first on the show, to my knowledge) I remember clearly, turning to the girl I was dating at the time and declaring "That guy is gonna be the President some day." When I said "some day", I kinda meant like, 10-20 years down the line. I could have never predicted it would have been the very next election.


I said the same thing to my wife the first time I heard him speak. She still can't believe our country put aside its love for hate long enough to elect him.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 16, 2012)

urklvt said:


> I said the same thing to my wife the first time I heard him speak. She still can't believe our country put aside its love for hate long enough to elect him.



A clever facade... 

We just want to look like we put aside our love for hate. Look at the ridiculousness that ensued over the possibility that he might be a Muslim. Sounds like hate to me.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 16, 2012)

urklvt said:


> She still can't believe our country put aside its love for hate long enough to elect him.


 
Well there are still many of us holding on to our hate for overt communism.


----------



## XEN (Mar 16, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well there are still many of us holding on to our hate for overt communism.


Without a damn clue as to why.


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Mar 16, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well there are still many of us holding on to our hate for overt communism.


How's that Red Scare propaganda treating you?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 16, 2012)

urklvt said:


> Without a damn clue as to why.


 
If you can look up communism in the dictionary, then you shouldn't have such an issue figuring it out .


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 16, 2012)

ArkaneDemon said:


> How's that Red Scare propaganda treating you?


 
Why would I be red scared? We've never lost to communism before, why will it be any different this time?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams (Mar 16, 2012)

If Santorum is voted president, i'm gonna go ahead and swim the 11 miles across the Straits to Canada from my town.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 16, 2012)

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> If Santorum is voted president, i'm gonna go ahead and swim the 11 miles across the Straits to Canada from my town.


 
Now that's some cold water!!!

I once went swimming in the Puget Sound.
The currents were unreal strong and the water was sooooo cold that my balls shrank down in size to that of a south-side Chicago community organizers .


----------



## renzoip (Mar 16, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> If you can look up communism in Karl Marx's works, then you shouldn't have such an issue figuring it out .



Fixed for you


----------



## renzoip (Mar 16, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Why would I be red scared? We've never lost to communism before, why will it be any different this time?



Probably cause you never fought Communism in the first place. The whole "you disagree with me = communist" tactic was just a mechanism for the "Conservatives" to highjack and control the political discourse and discussion.

Back to Santorum, he wants a government that will be all up in your private business and tell consenting adult what to do and what not to do in private. Remember that next time a conservative tells you he believes in small government


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Mar 16, 2012)

NOBODIES TAKING MY Pornhub, youjizz, Redtube, Slutload, Kink, Makeover Milfs, Casting BackRoom, and Cake Farts AWAY FROM ME.

OVER MY DEAD BONER!


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 16, 2012)

renzoip said:


> Back to Santorum, he wants a government that will be all up in your private business and tell consenting adult what to do and what not to do in private. Remember that next time a conservative tells you he believes in small government


 
Thats funny, I've watched every debate and all I ever hear from the man is how and why we need to get the Washington government out of our lives. 

States rights, de-regulation, fiscal conservatism and a reborn mighty military is right where San the Man stands.

Maybe you're getting him confused with the big brother lover who's currently pedaling the left wing tricycle .


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 16, 2012)

^^
1) Military spending has increased since Obama got into office.

2) Free use of contraceptive, legalising gay marriage, leaving porn alone, legalising drugs, etc... These are libertarian ideas, they are also the opposite of Santorum's loudest policies. He's all for small government when it helps the rich and powerful, but wants big government when it gets down to the everyday.

EDIT: 3) A small army is surely another small government thing, isn't it?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 16, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> ^^
> 1) Military spending has increased since Obama got into office.


 
Doesn't make a difference because a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link (obama).

Being submissive to the terrorist just gaurantees defeat and dishonor. and much higher gas prices


----------



## ArkaneDemon (Mar 16, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Why would I be red scared? We've never lost to communism before, why will it be any different this time?



Red Scare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
McCarthyism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
This kind of Red Scare.



TRENCHLORD said:


> If you can look up communism in the dictionary, then you shouldn't have such an issue figuring it out .



I'll say one thing: I have only met two kinds of people when it comes to communism. The first group is the largest group, and it's the group that spews buzz words and "arguments" like "hurr durr it looks good on paper but it won't work in real life because human nature lol" or "communism is when doctors get paid the same as garbagemen" or other nonsense bullshit they picked up in school or from TV or the internet or parents. The second group of people is the smaller of the two groups, and it's the people who actually know what communism is, though that doesn't mean that they're communists themselves. These people will give legitimate arguments against communism, such as "well, creating a single-party, state-capitalistic country as a transitionary period from capitalism to communism is a bad idea, not necessarily because it has been tried and failed before, but because of the continuation of inequality through economic and political relationships within the population" or something along those lines.

Needless to say, that first group doesn't even deserve to hold a candle up to the second, since the first is what many people would call "a bunch of people who think they have any idea about what they're talking about". Don't be in that first group.


----------



## renzoip (Mar 16, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Maybe you're getting him confused with the big brother lover who's currently pedaling the left wing tricycle .



Maybe you are getting your definition of "left wing" from mainstream media or establishment political commentators. I dislike Obama too, cause he too is a right winger (as far as real leftists are concerned). I think that one of the biggest misconceptions is that Republicans = Right and Democrats = Left. I think defeating Obama will do very little when the issue is much bigger than that and people are relying on politicians form the same establishment.

Just my two cents.


----------



## renzoip (Mar 16, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Being submissive to the terrorist just gaurantees defeat and dishonor. and much higher gas prices



So does a rising demand in gas from other emerging economies. As far as defeat and dishonor, that all depends on whether you see war as a matter of "good guys vs. bad guys", like politicians love to portray it, or "death vs. the infliction of death"


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 16, 2012)

renzoip said:


> Maybe you are getting your definition of "left wing" from mainstream media or establishment political commentators. I dislike Obama too, cause he too is a right winger (as far as real leftists are concerned). I think that one of the biggest misconceptions is that Republicans = Right and Democrats = Left. I think defeating Obama will do very little when the issue is much bigger than that and people are relying on politicians form the same establishment.
> 
> Just my two cents.


 

I agree with this. There is a whole culture of corruption at play, and it can't be totaly fixed or implemented by one man alone (not even close).


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 16, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Doesn't make a difference because a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link (obama).
> 
> Being submissive to the terrorist just gaurantees defeat and dishonor. and much higher gas prices



What has lead you to believe that he's soft on terrorist?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 16, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> What has lead you to believe that he's soft on terrorist?


 
He's been kissing Ahmadjinebutt for over 3yrs now.
That sure smells traitor to me.

Anyone who thinks his role in killing Bin Laden was more than "Ok guys, I guess you can send the team in" is just plain lying to themselves .

We all know that one was Buschy's baby finally coming to a magnificant end. (bravo G.W. )


----------



## groph (Mar 18, 2012)

GAAAAAAHH WHY CAN'T EVERYBODY AGREE WITH ME??!


----------



## matt397 (Mar 18, 2012)

> I hope Rick Santorum ordered a piece of furniture online, and plans his whole weekend around redecorating his house around it, but when it arrives he opens the box and finds out they shipped him the wrong item and what they sent doesn&#8217;t even remotely match anything else in his house, so he has to spend his weekend getting it exchanged and doesn&#8217;t get to redecorate his house and has to wait like, three weeks for the replacement.



 

Oh sorry wrong thread


----------



## caskettheclown (Mar 18, 2012)

I'm really not worried about porn being censored or taken away. its the internet, people seem to care more about their internet than anything else.


----------



## Blind Theory (Mar 18, 2012)

Look at all that is illegal; drugs, murder, theft, prostitution, fraud, rape, assault, speeding, trespassing, drunk driving, kidnapping, child porn (to be more in this subject...I guess), etc, etc, etc. 

The fact that this is all illegal does not mean people don't have easy access to it or don't carry out these acts. He can go ban hardcore porn all he wants but a few things are going to stop him:

1) The fact that quite a few sites have 18 or older consent pages before actually transferring you to the adult content is a solid enough legal basis for the banning of hardcore porn not to go through.

2) With how pervasive the internet is, it won't matter if it is "banned" or made illegal. With the internet, all you have to do to find hardcore porn is type in Hardcore Porn in the browser and you are off to the races. Hell, to download music/movies/tv/games illegally all you have to do is type in the name of said product and you get page after page of download options. He is out of his mind if he thinks he can stop it.

3) People's idea of hardcore can vary just as people's religious views can vary. A super religious, bible belt value thumping Christian who has been married for 23 years and has 3 kids probably thinks a strip tease video is hardcore. On the flip side, a gutter junkie porn addict probably doesn't think it gets hardcore until horse hooves are being shoved up/down orifices. This alone makes the definition of "hardcore" VERY hard to actually define.

4) MY PORN WILL NOT BE FUCKED WITH! I SHALL REVOLT WITH ALL MY MIGHT IF THIS HAPPENS! LEAVE MY PORN THE FUCK ALONE!!


----------



## SkapocalypseNow (Mar 19, 2012)

Well, this article put it pretty well, IMO, in saying it's a sort of war on sex, that I could pretty safely say would inevitably fail harder than the "war on drugs." Buuuuut that's a whole 'nother can of worms entirely. He was born in '58, the man is stuck in a decade he barely remembers.


----------



## Asrial (Mar 19, 2012)

I'm flippin' glad I'm not american right now.
If you're having legal problems I feel bad for you son/I got 99 problems but a  ain't one.


More serious not, but still slightly OT: How on earth is there so many politicians in the US that's beyond vegetable state? Llamar Smith springs to mind too.


----------



## Powermetalbass (Mar 19, 2012)

I love the generalization of the title of this post. You do realize that if Rick Santorum is voted in he is only the president of the United States right? 300,000,000 people out of a total 6,000,000,000. thats 5% of the world. Porn won't end, it'll just be illegal to a small fraction of the world. Besides anyone under the age of 40 knows how to circumvent this proposed law through internet portals anyway.

Also read the damn article: 

"Although the idea of Santorum vanquishing Internet pornography may seem far-fetched, a serious effort to combat online smut might actually be successful, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh told The Daily Caller."
serious effort to combat, not eradicate. Regardless of what americans think, the president doesn't have the power. Otherwise porn and metal would have been illegal in the 80's under the Reagan administration.



Read more: Rick Santorum | Internet Pornography | Vigorous Crackdown | The Daily Caller
​


----------



## unclejemima218 (Mar 19, 2012)

and this is why, even though I consider myself a more left wing kinda guy, I never vote for either of the major candidates. both usually have some stupid way of doing things that will get me yelled at if I support them.


----------



## groph (Mar 19, 2012)

We all need to stage a fap-in. A massive circle jerk. FAPPUPY D.C, WHO'S WITH ME


----------



## BucketheadRules (Mar 20, 2012)

Santorum is batshit insane, and if he gets elected the whole world is doomed.

Not just the porn thing either... tbh, that's the least of my worries.

The bad things (the really bad things) are... oh, where do I start? The lunatic stance on abortion that stems from idiotic, fundamentalist religious views? The blanket, borderline-fascist prejudice against minority groups? The foreign policy that would leave most of the middle east on fire after three days? Or the fact that he's a hypocritical, bigoted bastard who is named after the frothy mixture of lube and faecal matter that is sometimes a by-product of anal sex?


----------



## SenorDingDong (Mar 21, 2012)

Here's what everyone should do:





Two men make out at a Rick Santorum rally and get thrown out. 

If we got couples to that at every rally, eventually Santorum would just start crying and give up.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Mar 21, 2012)

That is a good idea.


----------



## Bigfan (Mar 21, 2012)

Paging Drak to this thread. Let's start a fundraiser to buy the man plane-tickets to every city Santorum visits.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 21, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> We all know that one was Buschy's baby finally coming to a magnificant end. (bravo G.W. )



Please tell me you're just trolling...


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 21, 2012)

^ Of course he's trolling. Nobody legitimately thinks that Obama's some sort of traitor or that he only got Osama because Bush 'loosened the jar'. People who say that are either trolling or in the Tea Party.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 22, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> ^ Of course he's trolling. Nobody legitimately thinks that Obama's some sort of traitor or that he only got Osama because Bush 'loosened the jar'. People who say that are either trolling or in the Tea Party.


 
No, I wasn't trolling.
Obama didn't get Bin laden, Navy Seal team 5 got Bin Laden.
All Obama did is say OK guys you can go on it.
It certainly was Bush's seek and destroy policy that led to the track-down crack-down result.
I do commend Obama for giving the green light (although if it would have failed I think it'd have been disguised as an off course training mission or something so as to not tip our hand).

As for my Obama is traitor comment, I firmly believe he's a traitor to our constitution and country in many ways;
freedom of religion, guns rights, the fact that government isn't supposed to be in the tank for selective private industries, ect..., ect...

I'm not a tea party member nor have I taken the time to go to a rally, but I am a fan. I'd be much more likely to attend a thc party rally lol.


----------



## Daemoniac (Mar 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD, I just don't even know where to begin...

Santorum is a personal freedom draining, homophobic, constitution ignoring, soul sucking, woman persecuting, hard line religious zealot with absolutely no interest in doing 'what's best for *America*" so much as "making America a better ((sic) read: fundamentalist Christian-friendly) place". His political - and more importantly social - views are prehistoric and have absolutely no place in the modern world (let alone what is effectively the head of the Western world).

He's anti-contraception in all cases, anti-abortion in all cases, anti gay, anti science & evolution, anti freedom of religion (getting into office and implementing laws based on your personal religion destroys any notion of that), anti separation of church and state, anti pre-natal testing in mothers, anti privacy, and as far as I'm concerned, all of that makes him anti society.

The man is a joke in the scariest possible way, and is either the worlds greatest and most successful troll, or is an absolute monster with views that would have been right at home in the dark ages.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 22, 2012)

I think he's a good guy that wouldn't try to ram anything too awful crazy down the American people's throats.
Doesn't matter now because Romney's getting the delegates he needs in the comming weeks it appears.
And he's really getting almost all the main news/commontary show's recognition now as the almost for sure eventual nominie for the GOP.

So it looks now to be a Romney vs Obama contest in the fall.

Who do you guys think can do the best job?


----------



## MFB (Mar 22, 2012)

"Wouldnt try to ram anything too awful down America's throat"

Do you even remember the thread we're posting in? Man, you need to seriously go do some fact checking on Santorum and tell us which ones aren't "too awful" from his other batshit crazy policies


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Mar 22, 2012)

I can see it now...



> We're sorry, but the domain you have requested: ElderlyProstituteParties.poop Has been blocked due to explicit, pornograpgic, or violent content.


----------



## Daemoniac (Mar 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I think he's a good guy that wouldn't try to ram anything too awful crazy down the American people's throats.





In case you missed; 



Daemoniac said:


> He's anti-contraception in all cases, anti-abortion in all cases, anti gay, anti science & evolution, anti freedom of religion (getting into office and implementing laws based on your personal religion destroys any notion of that), anti separation of church and state, anti pre-natal testing in mothers, anti privacy



These aren't wild, outlandish accusations either, the man has come out and explicitly stated these things... He's good for nobody but fanatical religious bigots.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 22, 2012)

Daemoniac said:


> In case you missed;
> 
> 
> 
> These aren't wild, outlandish accusations either, the man has come out and explicitly stated these things... He's good for nobody but fanatical religious bigots.


 
Well alot of people sure like him. 

Most of those things are mandated at the state level anyways, so the only thing you'd have to be scared about would be the supreme court appointments that he'd have his chance to make while in office (if any of the justices fell ill or retired). And it would'nt hurt a bit for the court to come back to the center just a hair lol.


----------



## ExousRulez (Mar 22, 2012)

I love Lisa Ann as Sarah Palin. Is that considered a political view? 





















No internet porn would ruin my life.


----------



## Daemoniac (Mar 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well alot of people sure like him.



I also guarantee you that a lot of people would start making excuses and blaming everyone but him if any of his ass-backwards policies came in and society started crumbling in on itself as a result.

The man makes statements and clearly has no fucking idea exactly what the consequences of them are. I wonder if he even realises what 'birth control' is used for beyond preventing a woman from getting pregnant? Or how many additional births there would be if it were banned? Or how that would affect the economy when the vast numbers of families start falling below the poverty line when the inevitable happens and there are unplanned pregnancies that can't be stopped?

Irrespective of who passes the laws, the man at the top can always play a part - whether an immediate, direct part, or not is irrelevant. The fact that the country is led by an extremist would inevitably lead it down that path eventually.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 22, 2012)

Well as I posted already, it seems like Romney is the guy now for all intensive (whatever that means lol) purposes.

Anyone got the hate for him?


----------



## Necris (Mar 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Well alot of people sure like him.


The day that becomes a valid reason to support someone with such fucked up views is the day this country truly goes to hell.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Well as I posted already, it seems like Romney is the guy now for all intensive (whatever that means lol) purposes.
> 
> Anyone got the hate for him?


For future reference, "for all Intents and purposes" is the phrase.  I have Romney hate and it stems from my deep-seated hatred for all politicians.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> No, I wasn't trolling.
> Obama didn't get Bin laden, Navy Seal team 5 got Bin Laden.
> All Obama did is say OK guys you can go on it.
> It certainly was Bush's seek and destroy policy that led to the track-down crack-down result.
> ...




You do realize that your posts imply that your views are misguided at best and just regurgitating fox news at worst right? Where to begin????

1.) Obama is a traitor? Really? Interestingly enough, Bin Laden ran free for most of Bush's 2 terms (I say most because he wasn't THAT much of a concern for anybody prior to 9/11). Immediately after the attack, ALL airspace was grounded, yet Bush gave authorization for Bin Laden's parents to leave within hours of the attack. Yep, Bush was in tight with the dude's family, and as such, refused to allow them to be questioned as to Bin Laden's whereabouts or even to gain a better idea of where he might be heading. Also note that days prior to the attack, Bush DID receive messages from the CIA and FBI about a possible attack on the US. Did he bother to read the briefing? No, he spent the day playing golf. Yep, a possible attack on the US is secondary to perfecting your putt.  
As for Obama, he spent a lot of his first term in office coordinating with intelligence agencies pursuing Bin Laden. People again fail to realize that no foreign operation can get a legitimate green light without either congressional approval or an executive order from the president. (I highly disagree with the latter because I deem it unconstitutional. Only congress has the right to declare war, or order military action. But such is the way of things now)

The president must have operational knowledge of these things, and they often work closely with intelligence agencies to bring things to a head. So yes, Obama was very much a part of Bin Laden's capture. Of course the credit for being in the field goes to our Seal Team, but any military vet can vouch for the fact that you can't sneeze without permission. That's how we roll.

2.) Freedom of Religion huh? Tell me, how is Obama oppressing religion? By not siding with Santorum in saying that America must adopt a christian rhetoric, thereby excluding other religions like Islam, Buddhism and Judaism?
Or by eliminating things like DADT which allows an even playing field for ALL persons to serve in the military without fear of losing their career because of who they sleep with? Ah, I got it, you want to label him a traitor because he wants the government to step in on healthcare right? Yeah, he wants to make sure ALL American citizens have access to healthcare regardless of income because a healthy society is a productive society. Apparently public school should be eliminated along with any and all government aid for people to go to school to right? Yeah, because that TOTALLY ruined everything about our system and we are all now wearing red and saying 100 "hail karl marx"s a day because of it. 
It all comes down to the belief that we are a complete democracy (which we are not) and that the government should have NO place at all placing limits and/or having SOME control over things to keep them from being exploited.

Or wait, maybe you feel Obama is a traitor because he spent a lot of money trying to pay off Bush's debts since Bush is a goddamn troll and starting writing blank checks for corporations on his way out the door. Do you not remember who started the policy of bailing out companies to begin with? Yeah, it was Bush. I will give you that I'm less than impressed with Obama's job of monitoring these companies to make sure they didn't use that money to pay obscene bonuses to executives (which they did), nor am I too happy with his method of faux transparency on the issue. I give you that, and I chalk it up to sheer ignorance to how those people think along with an overly optimistic view of them. Gullibility is never a great trait to have, nor is trying too hard to please people that just cannot be pleased. (ie his sickening need for bi-partisanship in an environment where the thought of successful bi-partisanship is in step with the idea that you CAN divide by zero)

3.) Read my post in the "what do you think of democracy" thread regarding mass media. Particularly the part where the people that are hypnotized by it continue to spread lies and misinformation because they are told to do so; much like abused dogs that lick the fingers of their abusive masters and continue to do their bidding. This is what your posts sound like. You seem like a good enough guy that I find it INCREDIBLY hard to believe that you actually, truly believe the things you are posting. Furthermore the thought that you would support assholes like Santorum or Bachmann that, if they had their way, would spearhead the way to having a bisexual transgender like myself hanging on the business end of a rope is just sickening. Sure, support the continued down-trodding of people like myself and continue to all people like me to live a second class life because I happen to be in a "gay" relationship where I can't marry the man I love until I complete my transition. And in that sense, I have it good compared to countless cismen/women that are in same-sex relationships and, if things keep going the way they have been, probably will never get the chance to have a marriage. Before you spout "well hey, you have civil unions", note that they do NOT offer the same protections as an actual marriage. Case in point:
I heard a horror story of a lesbian couple that had a civil union and one of them became fatally ill. Because the family of the ill woman didn't approve of the relationship, the other girl wasn't allowed in to tell the women she loved dearly goodbye before said woman died. 

This is the shit you are saying you support when you say you support people like the current group of republican candidates. You are effectively saying that you support the mistreatment of fellow human beings and are okay with them being ignored and treated like shit. You are saying that you are okay with Christianity effectively becoming a state religion under the guise of freedom of religion, thus up-ending our long-revered policy of said freedom of religion. (for ALL religions mind you)
You also state that you are a fan of the tea party, who have done EVERYTHING to obstruct any and all job growth, and pretty much anything that could be beneficial to the country, just because it is headed up by either Obama or the democratic party. Their favorite tactic to take your eyes off this fact regarding the former is the infamous "birther" argument. You are effectively saying that you support this. You are also basically stating that you support a hypocritical party that is so extreme that it nearly destroyed the republican party and that it has lost almost all support from said party due to it's overly extreme views and obstructionism.

These are the things you are telling us you support. Please think dude. I find it really hard to believe that anybody on this forum could possibly support these things wholeheartedly....


----------



## Jakke (Mar 22, 2012)

@ american conservatives who believe that:
1. They know what communism is.
2. Their president is one (communist, that is).


I find it amusing that republicans (the current insane GOP) are very vocal about personal liberty and steak-eatership, however they are the people who seek to regulate what people put in their bodies, who they sleep with, what women (and men) choose to do regarding their own fertility, what religion you should follow, they are also very vocal about disposing of the rights of my fellow unbelievers in the US.
They give big taxbreaks to companies that can afford to pay taxes, and then complain about the public debt being high. They complain about taxes being "too high" while the tax-burden in the US is among the lowest in the industrialized world (try paying taxes here, 50-60% taxes are not uncommon)

Obama is going to win, not because he deserves it, but because of the prospect of him losing.


BTW.. How is fiscal responsibility to continue to subsidize big businesses and not taxing religions, while cutting down on what people really need, like libraries, teachers, public services etc.?


----------



## Varcolac (Mar 22, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> wall-of-win



Shut up and kiss me you big beautiful transsexual. 

One of the better jabs at this trend towards the unnecessary regulation of people's sexuality is from the West Wing (seriously, Martin Sheen for president any damn day).



Josh Lyman said:


> "I like you guys who wanna reduce the size of government -- make it just small enough so it can fit in our bedrooms."



The hilarious and sad part of it is that nobody seems to realise the disconnect between preaching "small government, low taxes, private healthcare only" on one hand, and "regulated sexuality, massive military spending, bureaucratic nightmares to deter abortion" on the other. You can't have a small government when you want to regulate peoples' private lives; you need moral watchmen to stop the buttsex whereever it rises. Saudi Arabia employs a practical army of young wannabe-imams to survey and censor the internet. You can't have low taxes with a massive military; tanks and planes and warships don't just buy themselves. You certainly can't have private healthcare only when you want to pile on a thousand miles of red tape for people seeking a standard medical procedure; at that point the government would be so entangled with the healthcare system that it might as well be nationalised.

I dislike this belligerent far-right resurgence. It seems to have caused ripples across the ocean: this week the Conservatives in the UK passed a bill that practically gives the green light to dismantle the National Health Service (which was rated #2 in the world for efficiency) in the name of business competition making things more efficient.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Mar 22, 2012)

groph said:


> We all need to stage a fap-in. A massive circle jerk. FAPPUPY D.C, WHO'S WITH ME



You'd like that wouldn't you?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 22, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> You do realize that your posts imply that your views are misguided at best and just regurgitating fox news at worst right? Where to begin??.


 
And your views are just regurgitating MSNBC, right?
My views are the majority through most of the heartland (proven by the SANmans victories in mmost of the countries geographic center states) and your views are the Polosi coasters view.
What can I say, you can't take the country out of country boy . (even after 20some years of extreme metal lol)

And yes I agree with you on Bush's failure to be fiscally responsible. He was also in the tank for all his CEO buddies at the big Corps, just like Obama in fact.

Please forgive me if all these social issues that concern you so much are just not the important issues to me.
I some how doubt that gun rights and wealth redistrubution by the government are your pressing issues like they are for most of the center country.
Do I whole-heartedly support all of Santorums beliefs? Of coarse not (never have found a canidate like that), but as I said before I agree with him on the things that are important to me.
I honestly do understand and respect your prioritization of the issues that concern you and your plight.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And your views are just regurgitating MSNBC, right?
> My views are the majority through most of the heartland (proven by the SANmans victories in mmost of the countries geographic center states) and your views are the Polosi coasters view.
> What can I say, you can't take the country out of country boy . (even after 20some years of extreme metal lol)
> 
> ...




I couldn't give a shit about gun rights outside of the fact that I very much believe every American has the right to own one. Which we still do, so how the hell is it even an issue? Because you can't go out and buy an overly modified AK47, which is fucking overkill anyways? The human rights abuses there... 

We do however see eye-to-eye on wealth distribution. In fact, that is right up there with my concerns for gay rights, and while my punk band doesn't have very many songs since we're still new, I actually wrote a song on this very topic and have yet to write anything on gay rights yet. I will, but right at this moment, we are seeing one of the worst cases of class warfare in the history of mankind. If the start of the French Revolution is any kind of historical cursor, the outcome of this could be very, very bad unless we start taking the extremely wealthy to task via legal means. I would like to believe the American people have come a ways since then and that we won't be decapitating our leaders anytime soon, but then again, people do irrational shit when they're angry... 

But even then, I'm still a little flabbergasted when people can look at a civil rights issue like gay rights, and completely ignore it in favor of guns and money. In case no one ever told you:

People > guns and money

But I guess if things go the way you are suggesting, I'm gonna need some wealth to buy guns to defend myself from ultra-conservatives when they come calling to send my ass to an internment (re: concentration) camp... 
(Hyperbole you say? Not according to Michelle Bachmann, who is on record stating that gays are worse than terrorists.  )

Edit:
Also, it's important to note that bad presidents are often picked due to people voting for said presidents because they agree with one or two of the issues on their candidate's platform and completely ignore the rest of the crazy bullshit that would pretty much ruin life for Americans. Case in point:
Ron Paul. People tend to ignore his ties to white power groups because he wants to decriminalize marijuana. Hey I'm 420-friendly too, but I place people above ideas so I'd rather tree still be illegal than support a potential president that is financed by people that wanna go "hang blackie on a tree down by the ol' swimmin' hole"


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 22, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And your views are just regurgitating MSNBC, right?
> My views are the majority through most of the heartland (proven by the SANmans victories in mmost of the countries geographic center states) and your views are the Polosi coasters view.
> What can I say, you can't take the country out of country boy . (even after 20some years of extreme metal lol)



Whilst she doesn't speak for the entire world, if you polled the non-American western world, I think you'll find the majority agree with most if not all of GhostofPerdition's (sp) post. These aren't 'Polosi coasters' (whatever that means) and a negligible amount get MSNBC. You also can't claim that the majority of the heartland support Santorum, as the only people who voted were Republicans. I'm sure that you're just excited about the recent success of Rick Poojuice, but just be careful with your labelling.



TRENCHLORD said:


> Please forgive me if all these social issues that concern you so much are just not the important issues to me.
> I some how doubt that gun rights and wealth redistrubution by the government are your pressing issues like they are for most of the center country.
> Do I whole-heartedly support all of Santorums beliefs? Of coarse not (never have found a canidate like that), but as I said before I agree with him on the things that are important to me.
> I honestly do understand and respect your prioritization of the issues that concern you and your plight.



This reminds me of when Dave Mustain (sp) said that he wasn't in favour of gay marriage because he's straight. (You merely said that you're indifferent so it's not on the same level.) Replace 'gay' with African American (or women, or some other group that's had to struggle to get the rights you take for granted), and see if your statement is okay. I think we can both agree that if you said that you didn't care about the civil rights movement during the '60s because it wouldn't help you, then that's a bad (and basically racist) thing to say. The same thing would be true of a similar statement on the suffragettes. I'm sure you're not homophobic, but can you see why some might make that assumption?


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

Santorum is a fucking nut bag. All the Republican candidates fucking suck. The biggest downside of this? We're going to be stuck with another term of Obama. 

Let's face facts, both sides suck huge donkey cock. They both want to strip citizens of as many rights as possible; they just want to do it for different idiotic reasons. 95% (conservative estimate) of politicians are corrupt and ignorant. They continue, however, to run the show because, guess what, 95% of the population is also ignorant.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> I couldn't give a shit about gun rights outside of the fact that I very much believe every American has the right to own one. Which we still do, so how the hell is it even an issue? Because you can't go out and buy an overly modified AK47, which is fucking overkill anyways? The human rights abuses there...
> 
> We do however see eye-to-eye on wealth distribution. In fact, that is right up there with my concerns for gay rights, and while my punk band doesn't have very many songs since we're still new, I actually wrote a song on this very topic and have yet to write anything on gay rights yet. I will, but right at this moment, we are seeing one of the worst cases of class warfare in the history of mankind. If the start of the French Revolution is any kind of historical cursor, the outcome of this could be very, very bad unless we start taking the extremely wealthy to task via legal means. I would like to believe the American people have come a ways since then and that we won't be decapitating our leaders anytime soon, but then again, people do irrational shit when they're angry...
> 
> ...



While I agree that Ron Paul has some crazy personal views. He does not attempt to shove any of them down anyone's throat and his voting record proves it. We honestly should separate personal views from political. (Assuming said person would vote to the contrary of personal for the better of the public which I think Ron has proved he'd do) Saying that he could change later in his career, but he has always been pro freedom (gay, marijuana, etc.) and low taxes. Also, even if weed was legalized jobs can still drug test you and fire you if THC is in your system I'm sure of that. Just like showing up to a job drunk. Legal or not you'd have to have no job to do it even legalized or work somewhere where no one cared. To your other post I completely agree with you that social issues are a HUGE deal even if you personally are not affected. 

Obama has actually passed pro gun laws too people  now we can bring guns into national parks....why? I don't know


----------



## Necris (Mar 23, 2012)

On the assertion that he is pro freedom and supports gays, Ron Paul has stated that he believes that that recognition and/or legislation of marriages should be left to the states and local communities.Which is in line with his belief in "states' rights".
That may seem like support on the surface, but in actuality he believes in giving states the right to discriminate as they please.

He is a sponsor of the marriage protection act and signed the defense of marriage act, he has also been a vocal critic of Lawrence v. Texas on the grounds that "there is no right to privacy or sodomy in the constitution" he went on to say "the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." citing the 9th and 10th amendments as proof. 
Clearly he hasn't gone against his beliefs for the better of the public in regards to gay rights.


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Also, even if weed was legalized jobs can still drug test you and fire you if THC is in your system I'm sure of that. Just like showing up to a job drunk. Legal or not you'd have to have no job to do it even legalized or work somewhere where no one cared. To your other post I completely agree with you that social issues are a HUGE deal even if you personally are not affected.



Unless they did an absolutely piss poor job of implementing the legalization (which is entirely likely), this is probably not how it would work. Unlike alcohol, THC is in your system long after you're done being affected by it. If it were legalized (and I think it should be) an employer would probably get their asses sued off if they tried to fire someone for simply having THC in their system. They'd need to use a test that detects it specifically in amounts that are present while it's affecting the person. Otherwise it'd be analogous to firing a person because they got drunk on their day off.



flint757 said:


> Obama has actually passed pro gun laws too people  now we can bring guns into national parks....why? I don't know



That's not entirely accurate. All this change did was put the legality of this into state hands, where it should have been in the first place.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

Necris said:


> On the assertion that he is pro freedom and supports gays, Ron Paul has stated that he believes that that recognition and/or legislation of marriages should be left to the states and local communities.Which is in line with his belief in "states' rights".
> That may seem like support on the surface, but in actuality he believes in giving states the right to discriminate as they please.
> 
> He is a sponsor of the marriage protection act and signed the defense of marriage act, he has also been a vocal critic of Lawrence v. Texas on the grounds that "there is no right to privacy or sodomy in the constitution" he went on to say "the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards." citing the 9th and 10th amendments as proof.
> Clearly he hasn't gone against his beliefs for the better of the public in regards to gay rights.



Valid point it would be easy to guise yourself as pro freedom while supporting tax cuts and state rights. (like the ones you mentioned or removing funding for other organizations just because he isn't a fan of spending EPA Planned Parenthood). I'll be completely honest and say that I haven't looked up until now everything he has sponsored over the years and I don't agree with all of it, but expected it since he cuts funding since funding takes taxes (which he supports cutting) which can have adverse effects. Hmmm now I don't know what to think because in conversations with him and his responses to my emails (since he is my rep) his explanations for his positions are very good and well worded even if I disagree with him. Having said that I believe that there is very little that should be left to the states. Well i suppose it doesn't matter he'll never achieve more than he has. If I'm not mistaken he is for the repeal of don't aks , don't tell, but again that could be because of his state rights position.

interesting side note I just read about is that the what you do in the bedroom is your business and no one elses could have adverse side affects. Mainly because being shunned kind of falls in this category and it would be similar to being an alcoholic and then no one helping you through it so you never get better. Sometimes people need to be involved and accepting as well. The 
"what you do at home" policy is actually not a very tolerant policy when you think about it that way. It's a I'll ignore you because you do X or because you are Y, but you can do that if you want. To me that isn't a good policy, but I suppose is better than what we are working with as of now.

Well you might have just turned me against Ron, but in the end it doesn't matter like I said he isn't going anywhere he is stagnated politically.


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> interesting side note I just read about is that the what you do in the bedroom is your business and no one elses could have adverse side affects. Mainly because being shunned kind of falls in this category and it would be similar to being an alcoholic and then no one helping you through it so you never get better. Sometimes people need to be involved and accepting as well. The
> "what you do at home" policy is actually not a very tolerant policy when you think about it that way. It's a I'll ignore you because you do X or because you are Y, but you can do that if you want. To me that isn't a good policy, but I suppose is better than what we are working with as of now.



What you just wrote is the exact bullshit they use to enact laws to control people and take away rights. PEOPLE should be involved in other peoples' lives. Yes. Family, friends. Yes. Government needs to stay the fuck out of my home. People that I have no connection to need to stay out of my home. As long as someone isn't hurting anyone else, no one has a right to tell them shit.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Valid point it would be easy to guise yourself as pro freedom while supporting tax cuts and state rights. (like the ones you mentioned or removing funding for other organizations just because he isn't a fan of spending EPA Planned Parenthood). I'll be completely honest and say that I haven't looked up until now everything he has sponsored over the years and I don't agree with all of it, but expected it since he cuts funding since funding takes taxes (which he supports cutting) which can have adverse effects. Hmmm now I don't know what to think because in conversations with him and his responses to my emails (since he is my rep) his explanations for his positions are very good and well worded even if I disagree with him. Having said that I believe that there is very little that should be left to the states. Well i suppose it doesn't matter he'll never achieve more than he has. If I'm not mistaken he is for the repeal of don't aks , don't tell, but again that could be because of his state rights position.
> 
> interesting side note I just read about is that the what you do in the bedroom is your business and no one elses could have adverse side affects. Mainly because being shunned kind of falls in this category and it would be similar to being an alcoholic and then no one helping you through it so you never get better. Sometimes people need to be involved and accepting as well. The
> "what you do at home" policy is actually not a very tolerant policy when you think about it that way. It's a I'll ignore you because you do X or because you are Y, but you can do that if you want. To me that isn't a good policy, but I suppose is better than what we are working with as of now.
> ...


 
He has serious trouble finishing his sentences before starting a new one .
I usually know full well where he's going on it, and his mind is running in hyperspeed but his mouth can't keep up.

He's a good guy and would've been awsome to have a bit earlier on in our nations history. I just don't think he could do much to stop the money machines at work on top of our political/financial system.

I do think he under estimates our current and potential dangers from abroad, but at the same time I really admire his straightforwardness in stating that; given our current non successes in our military efforts abroad, that continuing our efforts to intervene in an suspiciously inconsistant way would be lunacy.

Our troops of coarse have went above and beyond the call of duty to perform the mission, but lets face it, this is a geographic region characterized by near constant war. The fact that we'd think we could stop it is most likely found offensive by most of the arab/middle-eastern/afgan-region world.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> What you just wrote is the exact bullshit they use to enact laws to control people and take away rights. PEOPLE should be involved in other peoples' lives. Yes. Family, friends. Yes. Government needs to stay the fuck out of my home. People that I have no connection to need to stay out of my home. As long as someone isn't hurting anyone else, no one has a right to tell them shit.



Huh, maybe I didn't say it in a way that was as eloquent as I should have. Yes, people should be able to do what they want, but policies that say what you do at your home is your own business actually follows closer to laws like Don't ask, don't tell and civil unions instead of marriages and open rights to join the military because the public doesn't have to support the policies themselves. Yes the government should stay out of our lives, but not at the expense of others either. Where they should be involved is in repealing archaic laws, making sure peoples civil rights in PUBLIC are not being violated and the overall safety of the public (ie stopping murder and thieves).



TRENCHLORD said:


> He has serious trouble finishing his sentences before starting a new one .
> I usually know full well where he's going on it, and his mind is running in hyperspeed but his mouth can't keep up.
> 
> He's a good guy and would've been awsome to have a bit earlier on in our nations history. I just don't think he could do much to stop the money machines at work on top of our political/financial system.
> ...



Yeah that is true. TBH there a couple branches of libertarians and the branch he comes from follows too strict of a code. Even he at times does. He is literally against anything that raises taxes, anything that creates federal power, irrelevant to the benefit. I realize that I have pulled a 180 one post to another, but I only talk to him on issues that I care about and his and my views are similar, but looking through all of his career he is over consistent on the state rights and tax cuts.


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Huh, maybe I didn't say it in a way that was as eloquent as I should have. Yes, people should be able to do what they want, but policies that say what you do at your home is your own business actually follows closer to laws like Don't ask, don't tell and civil unions instead of marriages and open rights to join the military because the public doesn't have to support the policies themselves. Yes the government should stay out of our lives, but not at the expense of others either. Where they should be involved is in repealing archaic laws, making sure peoples civil rights in PUBLIC are not being violated and the overall safety of the public (ie stopping murder and thieves).



Uh. No. I could not disagree at all. Don't ask don't tell is not analogous because, guess what, a soldier openly saying he's gay does not affect his ability to do his job. So, it was still a policy that, in fact, tread upon personal rights, not allowed for personal rights. 

Also (and READ WHAT I'M ABOUT TO WRITE COMPLETELY), I'm all for civil unions/domestic partnerships. I think that's the perfect way to solve the gay marriage issue. HOWEVER, I am NOT saying that gay people should have domestic partnerships and straight people should have marriage. My POV is that we should separate out marriage to be the religious union and domestic partnerships to be the legal union. Why... that sounds a lot like separation of church and state; imagine that. So, if a straight couple goes to the justice of the peace to get married, they'd be a domestic partnership. And, if a gay couple has a religious ceremony, they have a marriage. Makes complete fucking sense to me, doesn't infringe upon any religious beliefs, and it gives homosexuals equal rights under the law. Problem fucking solved.

There is NO law that infringes upon the rights of individuals that has the positive benefits you're attributing to them. Zero. Repealing old laws is an entirely different issue. You're absolutely right, we're not starting from zero. There's a lot of stupid shit that's been made law in our history. The solution to that is not taking away rights.

As for safety, the biggest damn carrot that the government ties to the stick call oppression (right ahead of "it's for the children"), same thing. Taking away peoples' rights does not create a safer environment.

(also, so there's no mistaking tone, I'm not angry or heated at all here)


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Uh. No. I could not disagree at all. Don't ask don't tell is not analogous because, guess what, a soldier openly saying he's gay does not affect his ability to do his job. So, it was still a policy that, in fact, tread upon personal rights, not allowed for personal rights.
> 
> Also (and READ WHAT I'M ABOUT TO WRITE COMPLETELY), I'm all for civil unions/domestic partnerships. I think that's the perfect way to solve the gay marriage issue. HOWEVER, I am NOT saying that gay people should have domestic partnerships and straight people should have marriage. My POV is that we should separate out marriage to be the religious union and domestic partnerships to be the legal union. Why... that sounds a lot like separation of church and state; imagine that. So, if a straight couple goes to the justice of the peace to get married, they'd be a domestic partnership. And, if a gay couple has a religious ceremony, they have a marriage. Makes complete fucking sense to me, doesn't infringe upon any religious beliefs, and it gives homosexuals equal rights under the law. Problem fucking solved.
> 
> ...



But here's thing theoretically I am all for the what you do in private is your business, I truly am, but in practice it translates how I described it. The marriage thing is moot because it is the way it is ATM. And at the moment people are saying to themselves hey you can do what you want I don't care and then not given equal rights, that was my point. The argument your making is completely valid, but things don't work that way. 

You mistake what I mean by safety I don't mean the Wars or piracy or even what Santorum is trying to do based on this thread. What I mean is the control of crime and the laws in place to make sure if I own a store the person who gets caught will be arrested and there are measures to help me out as well. Yes, I agree taking rights does not create safety I totally agree and I'm pretty sure I never said that. My only point is while saying what yo do in private is your business is a good start, we really need to transition to a society that is more tolerant in the public both in government and in the society.


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 23, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Also (and READ WHAT I'M ABOUT TO WRITE COMPLETELY), I'm all for civil unions/domestic partnerships. I think that's the perfect way to solve the gay marriage issue. HOWEVER, I am NOT saying that gay people should have domestic partnerships and straight people should have marriage. My POV is that we should separate out marriage to be the religious union and domestic partnerships to be the legal union. Why... that sounds a lot like separation of church and state; imagine that. So, if a straight couple goes to the justice of the peace to get married, they'd be a domestic partnership. And, if a gay couple has a religious ceremony, they have a marriage. Makes complete fucking sense to me, doesn't infringe upon any religious beliefs, and it gives homosexuals equal rights under the law. Problem fucking solved.



This civil union as a secular marriage idea makes a lot of sense. It's a good compromise that allows bigoted churches to stay as they are (as is their right) but also allows more progressive churches to have gay marriages if they want. The only problem I have with it is that marriage as we know it today didn't come from Christianity as shown by this post from another thread:



Grand Moff Tim said:


>



This is really neither here nor there, though. People seem to like the idea that only the nuclear family is in the Bible, and is therefore sacred. And if there's one thing we all know about bigoted religious folk, it's that they don't let facts get in the way of hate.

EDIT: This should go without saying, but I just thought I'd mention it anyway: the civil union for all secular marriages would have to be identical to a marriage in the eyes of the law for this idea to work.

Also, you could have the same idea in place, but call one a Christian* marriage and the other just a marriage. (But that's probably what's going to end up happening anyway.)


*Or Jewish, Muslim, Seek, etc...


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> But here's thing theoretically I am all for the what you do in private is your business, I truly am, but in practice it translates how I described it. The marriage thing is moot because it is the way it is ATM. And at the moment people are saying to themselves hey you can do what you want I don't care and then not given equal rights, that was my point. The argument your making is completely valid, but things don't work that way.



It does work that way though. The problem is that we're stuck in a system/society/culture that will not allow it to happen because everyone is concerned with what everyone else is doing, regardless of whether it actually affects them. 

What you're talking about is apathy. That's an entirely separate factor. Apathy and butting the fuck out of the business of others are 2 entirely different things.



flint757 said:


> You mistake what I mean by safety I don't mean the Wars or piracy or even what Santorum is trying to do based on this thread. What I mean is the control of crime and the laws in place to make sure if I own a store the person who gets caught will be arrested and there are measures to help me out as well. Yes, I agree taking rights does not create safety I totally agree and I'm pretty sure I never said that. My only point is while saying what yo do in private is your business is a good start, we really need to transition to a society that is more tolerant in the public both in government and in the society.



I knew what you meant by safety. Even the most libertarian individual would not endorse people having rights to the extent of those rights infringing upon others. That's freedom at the expense of others, and not what I'm talking about at all. 

Perfect example. Gun ownership. Me owning a gun, for whatever purpose DOES NOT affect you. Me shooting you with a gun does. Two entirely different things. Laws to punish someone for shooting another person. Totally justified and right. Laws to punish/make it harder/track someone for owning a gun. Asinine and utterly disgusting. Preemptively oppressing people because they "might commit a crime" is ridiculous and one of the most horrible things a government can do to it's people.

You're right, we do need to transition to a society that is more tolerant OF EVERYONE. You can not do that by taking away rights. Being tolerant also includes being tolerant of individuals who are not, themselves, tolerant. Example, a racist individual. There is a difference between that individual thinking, or even speaking about their racist ideals, and that individual acting on them. A tolerant society allows that individual their racist ideals as long as there is no action taken that infringes upon the rights of others. That includes speaking. And the sooner we as a society realize that words only hold the power we give them, the better. Otherwise we're one cunt hair away from losing free speech. Which is exactly where we're at now, in a world where we're already regulating "hate speech" in places like the UK. 

Again, what you're actually talking about is apathy. People saying, "eh, I can't think this through myself, or handle what that person is saying, government, step in and do it for me. Think for me."

That's not tolerance, that's not freedom. That's the exact opposite; that's oppression.


----------



## Necris (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> But here's thing theoretically I am all for the what you do in private is your business, I truly am, but in practice it translates how I described it.


Let's use the sodomy laws in Texas as an example again, after a change 1974 which decriminalized oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples and replaced the term "sodomy" with "homosexual conduct" these laws only applied to and affected the homosexual population. How does making "homosexual conduct" between two consenting adults make the public safer overall? Like DADT they were a purely discriminatory laws that in no way made the public safer and did not support or protect individuals civil rights in public.


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> This civil union as a secular marriage idea makes a lot of sense. It's a good compromise that allows bigoted churches to stay as they are (as is their right) but also allows more progressive churches to have gay marriages if they want. The only problem I have with it is that marriage as we know it today didn't come from Christianity as shown by this post from another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I realize that it doesn't stem from Christianity. I would designate it as a religious institution, in general, if I were in a position to implement my idea, not just through Christian churches.

Of course the 2 would have to be viewed equally through legal means. 

The fact that separation of church and state exists (for what it's worth) allows for this all to work without any other peripheral laws being put into place. This problem is, in fact, occurring because marriage law, as it exists now, does not respect separation of church and state. We've taken a religious institution and combined it with a legal one, and ended up with a huge mess.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> It does work that way though. The problem is that we're stuck in a system/society/culture that will not allow it to happen because everyone is concerned with what everyone else is doing, regardless of whether it actually affects them.
> 
> What you're talking about is apathy. That's an entirely separate factor. Apathy and butting the fuck out of the business of others are 2 entirely different things.
> 
> ...





Necris said:


> Let's use the sodomy laws in Texas as an example again, after a change 1974 which decriminalized oral and anal sex between heterosexual couples and replaced the term "sodomy" with "homosexual conduct" these laws only applied to and affected the homosexual population. How does making "homosexual conduct" between two consenting adults make the public safer overall? Like DADT they were a purely discriminatory laws that in no way made the public safer and did not support or protect individuals civil rights in public.



I give up. We agree is the ironic part in all this, but I wasn't going to write a 1000 page essay on which laws make us safe and which don't and I was not speaking of apathy or the government telling us what to believe so you actually did miss the point I was making completely. Y'all are cherry picking laws that should be repealed because they are discriminatory and pretending that some laws (ie not laws that discriminate, but help) don't in fact make society safer. That is a childish perspective to say the least, many laws do in fact protect us. 

Gun laws are handled at the state I'm sorry your troubled by all of this, but hey in Texas it isn't an issue and in case you didn't notice I live in Texas. That being said is it really ludicrous that we know who owns a gun. If we didn't you could shoot someone then dispose of it and no one is the wiser. There are laws that punish, but your peaking of laws that prevent guns in certain places and then said person does it anyways and gets in trouble. (school zones, government buildings, etc.) Should these places have restrictions, I don't know, but it is there choice so if you violate said law you get in trouble. If you want gun owner violations go tot he UK and then come back here.

All I'm saying is we need to become a society that doesn't look at everyone as second class citizens that is it. If marriages were the way you described that would be awesome, but it isn't, sadly, which is why I said what I said. I meant marriage in the official/government sense not the religious way.

Yes, tolerance means being tolerant of those who aren't and laws towards bigotry are a tad ridiculously (however I feel the laws about hate crime is an appropriate deterrent for said bigots since it only increases penalty it doesn't condemn your perspective unless you act on it). Honestly, and your going to disagree with me on this, but the spoken word can in fact have adverse side effects like suicide, rioting, mob effect bullying, etc. Does this mean we should violate the first amendment, no, but I don't really care what a bigot has to say in the first place. Nonetheless I never said create laws to "make" people tolerant I just said people should be more tolerant.


----------



## Necris (Mar 23, 2012)

I think the issue is not in our responses but in your wording and your interpretation of our replies. For what it's worth Texas's Sodomy Laws were repealed in 2003 the only reason I used them as an example was because I'd mentioned them anyway. No-one has said that all laws should be abolished or that there are laws that are non-discriminatory in nature which do nothing to protect people. Additionally No-one in this thread proposed creating laws to "make" people tolerant or curtail freedom speech.

To be more directly on topic, I am a fan of pornography.


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I give up. We agree is the ironic part in all this, but I wasn't going to write a 1000 page essay on which laws make us safe and which don't and I was not speaking of apathy or the government telling us what to believe so you actually did miss the point I was making completely.



No. I did not miss your point. As Necris said, your interpretation is where the breakdown is occurring. You're confusing my addressing of your opinions with my examples of the situation, in general (for instance, I was only using gun laws as an example, not addressing whatever your individual views of it may be. Hence me writing, "perfect example" at the beginning of that paragraph). Also, yes, you were talking about apathy and government oppression, you are simply using the language that the government tends to promote when discussing those things, in order to put a spin onto them that benefits those in power.




flint757 said:


> Y'all are cherry picking laws that should be repealed because they are discriminatory and pretending that some laws (ie not laws that discriminate, but help) don't in fact make society safer. That is a childish perspective to say the least, many laws do in fact protect us.



Yes, I am absolutely cherry picking laws, because, despite what you seem to be getting from my statements, I am not an anarchist. I am not saying that there should be no law. I'm saying that there is a line between laws that make society safer and those that are a waste and that line is damn near the exact same line that separates laws that prevent people from infringing upon the rights of others and laws that simply butt in, unnecessarily, in to peoples' individual rights.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

Necris said:


> I think the issue is not in our responses but in your wording and your interpretation of our replies. For what it's worth Texas's Sodomy Laws were repealed in 2003 the only reason I used them as an example was because I'd mentioned them anyway. No-one has said that all laws should be abolished or that there are laws that are non-discriminatory in nature which do nothing to protect people. Additionally No-one in this thread proposed creating laws to "make" people tolerant or curtail freedom speech.





Lern2swim said:


> You're right, we do need to transition to a society that is more tolerant OF EVERYONE. You can not do that by taking away rights. Being tolerant also includes being tolerant of individuals who are not, themselves, tolerant. Example, a racist individual. There is a difference between that individual thinking, or even speaking about their racist ideals, and that individual acting on them. A tolerant society allows that individual their racist ideals as long as there is no action taken that infringes upon the rights of others. That includes speaking. And the sooner we as a society realize that words only hold the power we give them, the better. Otherwise we're one cunt hair away from losing free speech. Which is exactly where we're at now, in a world where we're already regulating "hate speech" in places like the UK.
> 
> Again, what you're actually talking about is apathy. People saying, "eh, I can't think this through myself, or handle what that person is saying, government, step in and do it for me. Think for me."



Wasn't saying anyone proposed that, but Lern2swim was insinuating by the mere fact of bringing it up which the only logical reason for doing so is proposing that I in fact said we should "creating laws to "make" people tolerant or curtail freedom speech" which I did not (he assumed I was talking about apathy which I wasn't). I admit I was exaggerating with the abolishing of laws comments, but you and Lern2swim were cherry picking some unsavory laws to make the point about safety and all I said was that the government does need to make laws that keep us safe, but that does not imply that I think the laws in place that are to "keep us safe" necessarily do so. But I do think it is the job of the government to do so (if done right).


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Wasn't saying anyone proposed that, but Lern2swim was insinuating by the mere fact of bringing it up which the only logical reason for doing so is proposing that I in fact said we should "creating laws to "make" people tolerant or curtail freedom speech" which I did not (he assumed I was talking about apathy which I wasn't). I admit I was exaggerating with the abolishing of laws comments, but you and Lern2swim were cherry picking some unsavory laws to make the point about safety and all I said was that the government does need to make laws that keep us safe, but that does not imply that I think the laws in place that are to "keep us safe" necessarily do so. But I do think it is the job of the government to do so (if done right).



Addressed all of this in my previous post.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> No. I did not miss your point. As Necris said, your interpretation is where the breakdown is occurring. You're confusing my addressing of your opinions with my examples of the situation, in general (for instance, I was only using gun laws as an example, not addressing whatever your individual views of it may be. Hence me writing, "perfect example" at the beginning of that paragraph). Also, yes, you were talking about apathy and government oppression, you are simply using the language that the government tends to promote when discussing those things, in order to put a spin onto them that benefits those in power.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was just overgeneralizing your post as you did mine by saying people should be apathetic. I do not think people should be indifferent or it least i do not think people should be blindly following the leaders of the nation. People should have an opinion. Thus, as that is not my opinion it would not "help" those on power. So what laws do you agree with because your post seems to imply that you think laws that keep people safe are the laws that shouldn't exist. 

I could take it a step further on the gun thing specifically though. Some of the shootings that have occurred over the years could have been prevented if gun stores did proper background checks for criminal/medical records. Could it have been completely prevented, no, because those same people could steal a gun or take a friends, etc. so I see where you are saying that such a law as this example goes would "infringe" on someones rights, so by that logic I guess we should just do nothing about it. 

In any case I already stated that i think that for the most part the idea that what you do is your business is a great policy to follow, but if you take it to the literal we also become a society that just doesn't give a shit about others. In a society like this rehab centers (ones you go to by choice) don't exist. Other than that though it is fine. If you hate someones lifestyle, but still hire them then you are living by that philosophy however we have laws that make sure to that people don't judge someone on that level. I do have mixed feelings about these laws because in a way isn't it someones right to not hire (pay) someone to do a job if they don't want to. There is no law if someone hires only friends at a job so why do we care. At the same time I have seen first hand how someone who is racist discriminates, but nowadays you can go somewhere else and it would probably be a healthier environment anyways. (why would you want to work somewhere where people hate you?). Those laws were created in an era though where there was no alternative because everyone was being turned away. 

Every law can show its good side and every law can show its bad side. The question there is how to remedy that. For instance, your view on marriage is a great way to go about it, however, our corrupt government would never do that because they are under the delusion that hetero marriages are legit while all other marriages are just an attempt at tax fraud. That is ridiculous, but that plays a big part in the why. I've often wondered how we supposedly have separation of church and state with the way marriage is and the fact that churches pay no taxes. Tax breaks are the same as a tax return in my opinion (you have money that you didn't before). 

My only point in all of this originally is that for the most part the leave everyone alone philosophy is a good philosophy, but it is not bullet proof and has problems of its own.


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> I was just overgeneralizing your post as you did mine by saying people should be apathetic.



I did not say that at all. 



flint757 said:


> In any case I already stated that i think that for the most part the idea that what you do is your business is a great policy to follow, but if you take it to the literal we also become a society that just doesn't give a shit about others.



No, it becomes a society that doesn't FORCE people to give a shit about others. In my opinion, a positive change.



flint757 said:


> In a society like this rehab centers (ones you go to by choice) don't exist.



I wholeheartedly disagree. If there's one thing Kickstarter has shown us, it's that people will willingly contribute money to worthy causes.



flint757 said:


> I do have mixed feelings about these laws because in a way isn't it someones right to not hire (pay) someone to do a job if they don't want to. There is no law if someone hires only friends at a job so why do we care. At the same time I have seen first hand how someone who is racist discriminates, but nowadays you can go somewhere else and it would probably be a healthier environment anyways. (why would you want to work somewhere where people hate you?). Those laws were created in an era though where there was no alternative because everyone was being turned away.



Again, in this example, you're combining things that don't affect the rights of others with things that do. 

Every law can show its good side and every law can show its bad side. The question there is how to remedy that. For instance, your view on marriage is a great way to go about it, however, our corrupt government would never do that because they are under the delusion that hetero marriages are legit while all other marriages are just an attempt at tax fraud. That is ridiculous, but that plays a big part in the why. I've often wondered how we supposedly have separation of church and state with the way marriage is and the fact that churches pay no taxes. Tax breaks are the same as a tax return in my opinion (you have money that you didn't before). 

My only point in all of this originally is that for the most part the leave everyone alone philosophy is a good philosophy, but it is not bullet proof and has problems of its own.[/QUOTE]


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> I did not say that at all.



Ya what i meant was you have been saying that that was my perspective which it isn't.



> No, it becomes a society that doesn't FORCE people to give a shit about others. In my opinion, a positive change.



And you may be right the only way to know is for it to happen. People are unpredictable, for all we know it could be the worst thing ever. People make decision assuming that something will work obviously it doesn't always otherwise we wouldn't be having the problems we have.



> I wholeheartedly disagree. If there's one thing Kickstarter has shown us, it's that people will willingly contribute money to worthy causes.



Again, I meant that if you take the philosophy for what it is literally called(which is a stretch obviously) no they wouldn't because other peoples problems are not others concern. Not implying that that is how it would work because you are more than likely right, but this has been from the beginning a somewhat theoretical and slightly exaggerated argument. Problems with any philosophy need to be fixed, but pointing out only the bad things is what politicians do (ie cherry picking). That was the only reason I made that comparison. Despite what you may believe I think our government is fucked up and needs restraint, it's not so much that I'm playing devils advocate, but that I don't mean safe in the republican sense. (War, wire tapping, detainment, airport security, etc.) I mean that people who do break the law show some restraint (like sticking to easy targets instead of the secure/hard targets) because there are laws in place that those criminals don't want to get in trouble for when the odds aren't in their favor.



> Again, in this example, you're combining things that don't affect the rights of others with things that do.



All laws affect the rights of other because all laws have to be obeyed by all people. 

"If you hate someones lifestyle, but still hire them then you are living by that philosophy however we have laws that make sure to that people don't judge someone on that level. I do have mixed feelings about these laws because in a way isn't it someones right to not hire (pay) someone to do a job if they don't want to. There is no law if someone hires only friends at a job so why do we care. At the same time I have seen first hand how someone who is racist discriminates, but nowadays you can go somewhere else and it would probably be a healthier environment anyways. (why would you want to work somewhere where people hate you?). Those laws were created in an era though where there was no alternative because everyone was being turned away. 

Every law can show its good side and every law can show its bad side. The question there is how to remedy that. For instance, your view on marriage is a great way to go about it, however, our corrupt government would never do that because they are under the delusion that hetero marriages are legit while all other marriages are just an attempt at tax fraud. That is ridiculous, but that plays a big part in the why. I've often wondered how we supposedly have separation of church and state with the way marriage is and the fact that churches pay no taxes. Tax breaks are the same as a tax return in my opinion (you have money that you didn't before). "

Don't know what you're talking about these thing do affect the rights of others whether it is the employer, the employee, the potential employee, or the gay couple down the block. I did not mix laws that do and don't affect others, but please specify on anything if you think I did as it might clear up the disconnect in our conversation.


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> All laws affect the rights of other because all laws have to be obeyed by all people.
> 
> "If you hate someones lifestyle, but still hire them then you are living by that philosophy however we have laws that make sure to that people don't judge someone on that level. I do have mixed feelings about these laws because in a way isn't it someones right to not hire (pay) someone to do a job if they don't want to. There is no law if someone hires only friends at a job so why do we care. At the same time I have seen first hand how someone who is racist discriminates, but nowadays you can go somewhere else and it would probably be a healthier environment anyways. (why would you want to work somewhere where people hate you?). Those laws were created in an era though where there was no alternative because everyone was being turned away.
> 
> ...



Regulating a person's ability to hold racist beliefs (for example, make racist jokes)= regulating something that does not affect others.

Regulating a person's ability to deny someone a job because of their race= regulating somethign that affects others.

Regulating thought vs. regulating actions.

I wasn't saying that laws shouldn't affect anyone. I was saying that we should only have laws that regulate things that affect others.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Regulating a person's ability to hold racist beliefs (for example, make racist jokes)= regulating something that does not affect others.
> 
> Regulating a person's ability to deny someone a job because of their race= regulating somethign that affects others.
> 
> ...



Okay I see what your saying. So then for the most part the only thing you have a problem with is laws against hate speech. That is an opinion I hold that we can't be truly tolerant until we tolerate the intolerant. I had to do a foster class awhile back and the teacher said something that rings true, words only have power if you let them. 

So out of curiosity are there any other more specific laws you have an issue with?

[EDIT]
I should note though that some people do believe that hate speech does affect others. Especially in places where you can't just avoid the asshole calling you names and not everyone is strong enough to ignore it hence suicides, cutting etc. i think verbal bullying should be stopped (mental abuse can be just as bad as physical my nephew is a testament to that), but racial jokes and things of that nature are just that jokes so who cares.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 23, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> Uh. No. I could not disagree at all. Don't ask don't tell is not analogous because, guess what, a soldier openly saying he's gay does not affect his ability to do his job. So, it was still a policy that, in fact, tread upon personal rights, not allowed for personal rights.
> 
> Also (and READ WHAT I'M ABOUT TO WRITE COMPLETELY), I'm all for civil unions/domestic partnerships. I think that's the perfect way to solve the gay marriage issue. HOWEVER, I am NOT saying that gay people should have domestic partnerships and straight people should have marriage. My POV is that we should separate out marriage to be the religious union and domestic partnerships to be the legal union. Why... that sounds a lot like separation of church and state; imagine that. So, if a straight couple goes to the justice of the peace to get married, they'd be a domestic partnership. And, if a gay couple has a religious ceremony, they have a marriage. Makes complete fucking sense to me, doesn't infringe upon any religious beliefs, and it gives homosexuals equal rights under the law. Problem fucking solved.
> 
> ...




Civil unions/domestic partnerships as they are, are terrible. They do not grant the same rights and privileges as a marriage. For example, as I mentioned in my last post, a woman was dying and her partner was forbidden from seeing her and telling her good-bye. Can you imagine being married and being forbidden from telling you dying wife good-bye just because the law doesn't recognize your "marriage" as being equal to other marriages? Yeah, there's where the problem lies.

We want the right to have a marriage like anybody else. Now where I *DO* agree is that churches and religious institutions have the right to make their own rules regarding marriage. I am in no way for forcing churches to change their beliefs, no matter how much I may disagree with them. However the law needs to divorce itself from religion and protect people like myself too. Instead they are protecting themselves from this by instituting things like their pro-bully laws where kids can now run around chasing the "faggots" with their bible and harassing the shit out of them. Plus teachers cannot even say the word gay in class anymore, let alone teach about it as a viable for of relationship. My point here is that instead of addressing the problem and doing the right thing, the government is compounding the problem under the guise of "freedom of religion". That's cool, but who the fuck is protecting my rights? I'm a natural born citizen of this country, I've always paid my taxes, and am a productive member of society. I have the right to not have to deal with their bullshit, and goddamn it, I have the right to marry another consenting adult, regardless of gender.

You know you live in a fucked up country when in some states (like my home state of california) it's legal to marry your first cousin, but you can't marry someone as the same sex as you. Don't believe me?:
State laws and cousin marriage | Cousin Marriage Resources


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Okay I see what your saying. So then for the most part the only thing you have a problem with is laws against hate speech. That is an opinion I hold that we can't be truly tolerant until we tolerate the intolerant. I had to do a foster class awhile back and the teacher said something that rings true, words only have power if you let them.
> 
> So out of curiosity are there any other more specific laws you have an issue with?



That is far from the only thing I have a problem with. It's just a prime example. If you go back over this thread, there's a lot of prime examples, in fact.

However, a simple way of generalizing it would be that I do not support laws that regulate thought and words, rather than actions committed by individuals that infringe upon the rights of others.

This includes everything from objectionable speech, to gun laws, to forcing people to wear seatbelts. It's a huge list of bullshit, pussified crap that we've clogged our societies with and it's ridiculous and detrimental to all.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Civil unions/domestic partnerships as they are, are terrible. They do not grant the same rights and privileges as a marriage. For example, as I mentioned in my last post, a woman was dying and her partner was forbidden from seeing her and telling her good-bye. Can you imagine being married and being forbidden from telling you dying wife good-bye just because the law doesn't recognize your "marriage" as being equal to other marriages? Yeah, there's where the problem lies.
> 
> We want the right to have a marriage like anybody else. Now where I *DO* agree is that churches and religious institutions have the right to make their own rules regarding marriage. I am in no way for forcing churches to change their beliefs, no matter how much I may disagree with them. However the law needs to divorce itself from religion and protect people like myself too. Instead they are protecting themselves from this by instituting things like their pro-bully laws where kids can now run around chasing the "faggots" with their bible and harassing the shit out of them. Plus teachers cannot even say the word gay in class anymore, let alone teach about it as a viable for of relationship. My point here is that instead of addressing the problem and doing the right thing, the government is compounding the problem under the guise of "freedom of religion". That's cool, but who the fuck is protecting my rights? I'm a natural born citizen of this country, I've always paid my taxes, and am a productive member of society. I have the right to not have to deal with their bullshit, and goddamn it, I have the right to marry another consenting adult, regardless of gender.
> 
> ...



This was the point I was trying to make. Just looking the other way doesn't stop bullying and treating others like second class citizens.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> That is far from the only thing I have a problem with. It's just a prime example. If you go back over this thread, there's a lot of prime examples, in fact.
> 
> However, a simple way of generalizing it would be that I do not support laws that regulate thought and words, rather than actions committed by individuals that infringe upon the rights of others.
> 
> This includes everything from objectionable speech, to gun laws, to forcing people to wear seatbelts. It's a huge list of bullshit, pussified crap that we've clogged our societies with and it's ridiculous and detrimental to all.



So you mean victemless crimes which for the most part I can agree with you. However, there is debate about gun laws, but that is neither her nor there (already mentioned partially). In a way we do pay the price when someone doesn't wear a seat belt because if they get hurt in a car accident and have no insurance everyone else's insurance pays for it which means premiums go up. That is a chain reaction. I'll never understand drug laws or prostitution laws though. On some level we are all prostitutes . Pay for the movies, clothes, etc. after all in a way that is "paying" for sex (assuming you get laid). All in all it is just silly. All that is me going off on a tangent though.

I agree victemless crimes should not be punishable.


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> Civil unions/domestic partnerships as they are, are terrible. They do not grant the same rights and privileges as a marriage. For example, as I mentioned in my last post, a woman was dying and her partner was forbidden from seeing her and telling her good-bye. Can you imagine being married and being forbidden from telling you dying wife good-bye just because the law doesn't recognize your "marriage" as being equal to other marriages? Yeah, there's where the problem lies.
> 
> We want the right to have a marriage like anybody else. Now where I *DO* agree is that churches and religious institutions have the right to make their own rules regarding marriage. I am in no way for forcing churches to change their beliefs, no matter how much I may disagree with them. However the law needs to divorce itself from religion and protect people like myself too. Instead they are protecting themselves from this by instituting things like their pro-bully laws where kids can now run around chasing the "faggots" with their bible and harassing the shit out of them. Plus teachers cannot even say the word gay in class anymore, let alone teach about it as a viable for of relationship. My point here is that instead of addressing the problem and doing the right thing, the government is compounding the problem under the guise of "freedom of religion". That's cool, but who the fuck is protecting my rights? I'm a natural born citizen of this country, I've always paid my taxes, and am a productive member of society. I have the right to not have to deal with their bullshit, and goddamn it, I have the right to marry another consenting adult, regardless of gender.
> 
> ...



Agree wholeheartedly. My position is not to just leave domestic partnership as it is. Marriage and domestic partnership would need to be given equal legal rights.


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

flint757 said:


> So you mean victemless crimes which for the most part I can agree with you. However, there is debate about gun laws, but that is neither her nor there (already mentioned partially). In a way we do pay the price when someone doesn't wear a seat belt because if they get hurt in a car accident and have no insurance everyone else's insurance pays for it which means premiums go up. That is a chain reaction. I'll never understand drug laws or prostitution laws though. On some level we are all prostitutes . Pay for the movies, clothes, etc. after all in a way that is "paying" for sex (assuming you get laid). All in all it is just silly. All that is me going off on a tangent though.
> 
> I agree victemless crimes should not be punishable.



There's no such thing as a victimless crime, in my opinion. If something doesn't ACTUALLY have a victim, then it SHOULD NOT be a crime (yes, I realize that as things stand, this is not the case)

You need to keep in mind, I am very realistic about my beliefs. I realize that, in order for it to work the way I'd like, it would take a complete overhaul of damn near every system we know.

For instance, your chain reaction. I do not think that people should be required to wear seatbelts. I also, however, do not believe that people should be forced to pay for the medical care of someone that is injured because they chose not to do so. How does that get sorted out? It'd be very complicated, but, if people were actually willing to put in the effort to figure it out, rather than just bicker and do the same shit, repeatedly, that hasn't worked before, I'm thoroughly convinced that we'd all be better off.

The "debate" about gun laws is whether we should legislate the thought in addition to the act (I doubt many would argue against shooting someone in cold blood being illegal). There's no debate as far as I'm concerned. Legislate the action only. The government should not have access to any records of gun ownership in any capacity that would allow for potential future confiscation. That flies directly in the face of the intent of the 2nd amendment (and don't be fooled, that right is just as important now as ever). Does this belief mean that, occasionally, horrible gun crimes will happen? Yes. I also, however, feel that we've deluded ourselves far too much into thinking we can "save" everyone, and that that is a big part of the problem. Also, statistics show time and time again that gun laws don't work.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

Lern2swim said:


> There's no such thing as a victimless crime, in my opinion. If something doesn't ACTUALLY have a victim, then it SHOULD NOT be a crime (yes, I realize that as things stand, this is not the case)
> 
> You need to keep in mind, I am very realistic about my beliefs. I realize that, in order for it to work the way I'd like, it would take a complete overhaul of damn near every system we know.
> 
> ...



I agree with all of that. My opinion was more with dealing with the problems we have that would potentially work given the political atmosphere and yours seems to be in the theoretical which I wish was how things were, but is a long ways away if ever. Then again maybe my attitude (and the many others who feel this way) is part of the problem similar to the I vote rep or dem because 3rd party never wins mentality.


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 23, 2012)

I tried to read that whole previous page, but it was too long.

The annoying is that you guys basically agree. Learn2Swim is saying that government should stay out of people's personal lives. Flint757 is saying that government should stay out of people's personal lives, but communities should take a healthy interest in the name of support. THESE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE IDEAS. I'm sure that Learn2Swim's philosophy allows for people to to be involved in an open community if they wish, just as Flint757 would surely allow an introvert to keep private about (almost) anything they want.

I think the problem is that these post are WAY TOO FUCKING LONG so neither party is getting the full story.

(This may very well include me because, as I said at the start, I didn't read all of those walls of text.)


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 23, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> I tried to read that whole previous page, but it was too long.
> 
> The annoying is that you guys basically agree. Learn2Swim is saying that government should stay out of people's personal lives. Flint757 is saying that government should stay out of people's personal lives, but communities should take a healthy interest in the name of support. THESE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE IDEAS. I'm sure that Learn2Swim's philosophy allows for people to to be involved in an open community if they wish, just as Flint757 would surely allow an introvert to keep private about (almost) anything they want.
> 
> ...


 
Attention; The post police have arrived and they're serious about cracking down on long post .
Here you are for all these personal freedoms, and your trying to legislate post length.

I'm totaly joking here so don't think I'm slamming .


----------



## flint757 (Mar 23, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> I tried to read that whole previous page, but it was too long.
> 
> The annoying is that you guys basically agree. Learn2Swim is saying that government should stay out of people's personal lives. Flint757 is saying that government should stay out of people's personal lives, but communities should take a healthy interest in the name of support. THESE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE IDEAS. I'm sure that Learn2Swim's philosophy allows for people to to be involved in an open community if they wish, just as Flint757 would surely allow an introvert to keep private about (almost) anything they want.
> 
> ...




pretty much sums up my opinion. The only laws I believe in are the ones that stop people from violating said idea (theft, murder, etc.). We agreed, but we also differed on execution. He has an ideal and we agree on that ideal, but I want to find a way to add some of those ideals into what we got (because if we are honest things aren't changing anytime soon) and he wants the ideal to be the end result (I do too, but find it less likely to happen). Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong though . It isn't the first time an intelligent person changed my opinion.


----------



## Ben.Last (Mar 23, 2012)

Yeah. I don't believe in dumbing things down simply because a discussion is taking place on the internet. I realize that's not a very popular stance to take in a world of 140 characters, lol, and your/you're getting used interchangably, but I stand by it nonetheless. 

Does that mean that sometimes things get lost in the process? Yes. But that's because society is gradually dumbing us down, not because some of us are holding out hope. 

And I don't think it was lost in the discourse anywhere that, by and large, we agree. I don't think that that precludes the possibility of discussion. Not every Internet interaction has to be a fight. 

My input to him was simply to point out that he was coming across to me as having some very damaging, pervasive ideas seeping into stances that we otherwise seemed to be like minded on.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Here you are for all these personal freedoms, and your trying to legislate post length.




To the meme thread! 

I agree though, they have essentially the same point, but are approaching it from different paths.


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 23, 2012)

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that long posts are inherently bad, it just seemed that the meaning was getting lost in walls of text. I'm most certainly NOT in favour of dumbing down society. Also, there is a difference between saying this and demanding a cap on posts, TRENCHLORD.


----------



## VILARIKA (Mar 23, 2012)

are we still talking bout porn or somethin else now


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 23, 2012)

VILARIKA said:


> are we still talking bout porn or somethin else now


 
Yeah, lets get back to porn,  muhahahahaha.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands (Mar 23, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah, lets get back to porn,  muhahahahaha.



+1


----------



## flint757 (Mar 24, 2012)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Yeah, lets get back to porn,  muhahahahaha.



without porn crime would be on the rise. 

In all seriousness I do think we would see an increase in rape, porn may in fact keep some crazies at bay.

Take my porn someones gonna get cut


----------



## Waelstrum (Mar 24, 2012)

^ I'm not saying that's necessarily true, but I remember seeing a chart that shows in inverse relationship between internet availability and sexual assault. Mind you, it was on Penn & Teller's bullshit, and I've seen them smudge facts before.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 24, 2012)

Waelstrum said:


> ^ I'm not saying that's necessarily true, but I remember seeing a chart that shows in inverse relationship between internet availability and sexual assault. Mind you, it was on Penn & Teller's bullshit, and I've seen them smudge facts before.



Ya i'm talking out of my ass I don't know if that is true, but I could see it happening. Some people just have an overkill sex drive and without outlets may snap.

rational + boner = does not compute


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 24, 2012)

They may take my testicles (thank god...), but they will never take my porn.... *shakes fist*


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 24, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Ya i'm talking out of my ass I don't know if that is true, but I could see it happening. Some people just have an overkill sex drive and without outlets may snap.
> 
> rational + boner = does not compute


 
Oh it's definetly true to a some extent no doubt.
There are more sickoes than we even think out there with the fortunate (for us) release of sitting home and enjoying porn instead of stalking some collage campus like Bundy. Sad but true.


----------



## tacotiklah (Apr 7, 2012)

Here's how I envision Obama upon hearing what Rick Santorum's plans are for internet pornography:






Any person that makes an attempt on porn of any kind is committing political suicide imho...


----------



## r3tr0sp3ct1v3 (Apr 7, 2012)

Aww man how would I get my daily exercise? 

Jokes aside, this man is just trying to get the votes from the christian organizations that try to get movies banned and all.

Or this guy has avery embarrassing video of him in a lemon party somewhere and the site he uploaded it to won't delete it. 

maybe..


----------



## Bigsby (Apr 7, 2012)




----------



## onionofdoom (Apr 11, 2012)

Rick Santorum; The Ultimate Troll.


----------



## Axayacatl (Apr 11, 2012)

matt397 said:


> Fuck this guy. He's an idiot of epic proportions. There's so much going on in this world right now an this guy wants to focus on porn, gay sex and preaching religion in the classroom and workplace. Totally sounds (and looks) like the kind of super conservative guy that spends his weekends in a gay brothel bound in leather gacking on cock wearing a buttplug screaming for daddy...




so funny!... I should have just quoted this for the other thread. 

Look, I really don't think he does that. 

But I sure as hell wish he did. 

Then he would be able to allocate his time as a public figure to productive things: education, the deficit, national defense, health care, tax policy, trade policy, instead of publicly bashing others as a crusade against his inner desires. In other words, increase the size and stability of the pie instead of trying to make it smaller for others. 

Rick, do us a favor, put those girlie sweater vests away and just take it! Take one for the team, nay, the whole country!

I promise that as long as you're with consenting adults and you're not making choices for other people or hurting gerbils, that nobody will bother you. That is your right as a US citizen, get it?


----------

