Register to reply

Rick Santorum's candidacy ...

by ThomasT
Tags: candidacy, rick, santorum
Share this thread:
AlephZero
#415
Mar10-12, 03:12 PM
Engineering
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
P: 7,168
Quote Quote by SHISHKABOB View Post
he'd make a great neighbor
For amusement only: Four quotes allegedly by Santorum, and four allegedly by Supreme Leader Khamenei. Who said what? http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...party?page=0,0

(I say "allegedly", because I haven't attempted to verify the sources).
ThomasT
#416
Mar11-12, 03:30 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by SHISHKABOB View Post
yeah I agree, I've also known lots of great Christians. But I've also known lots of great people who were not Christian.
Me too.

Quote Quote by SHISHKABOB View Post
Personally I think a good person will be a good person regardless of their faith, and vice versa.
Me too.

Quote Quote by SHISHKABOB View Post
Therefore I think that Santorum is really just using his faith to win votes, which is gross IMO.
I don't see anything particularly reprehensible about that. He's, apparently, a very religiously Christian guy and there are lots of very religiously Christian people in the US. Why would he not attempt to appeal to that constituency?

I won't vote for him, but pushing his religious orientation is part of the game as currently circumscribed. It's up to people who don't agree with that sort of thing to vote for a different candidate. Which I certainly will.
mathwonk
#417
Mar12-12, 11:03 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
mathwonk's Avatar
P: 9,486
aleph, i only got two of those right. i am one of those people who isn't sure whether santorum's nomination would help republicans or democrats more. but if it helps republicans i'm pretty nervous, because he seems not to appreciate separation of church and state, (or was that khameini?)
Angry Citizen
#418
Mar13-12, 01:44 AM
P: 867
i am one of those people who isn't sure whether santorum's nomination would help republicans or democrats more.
I've been predicting a splinter in the Republican Party since a little after Obama was elected. The seems to be three factions in the Republican Party, all vying for control. One is, of course, the traditional Republican establishment responsible for Bush the Elder and Reagan and the '94 Republican takeover, which makes up perhaps half of the current constituency. Another is the libertarian wing, which I feel makes up about 10% (about the share Ron Paul is getting on average). And lastly is the Christian Conservative side, responsible for Bush the Younger. These make up the rest.

What fascinates me most about this is just how unstable the relationship is. Libertarians and Christian conservatives are practically antithetical to one another in every respect except their particular brand of laissez-faire economics. "Secular" Republicans see Christian conservatives as a threat that must be beaten down, else their party will find itself on the losing end of a youth generation that is overwhelmingly liberal on social issues. If the libertarian wing starts to defect, then the tenuous balance of power between Democrats and Republicans will break leftward. If the secular Republicans can't defeat the Christian conservatives, then the Republicans will find themselves marginalized. It is of the utmost importance for Republicans that they find a way to purge the influence of Christian conservatives while maintaining them as a loyal voting bloc. I don't think it needs to be said just how unlikely this scenario will be.

This is what I see happening. This 'war' between Christian conservatives, secular Republicans and libertarians will play out all the way to the convention. Santorum will lose, but it will be much closer than Romney will feel comfortable with. Romney is not going to be accepted by all of the Christian conservative movement, but he will be accepted by most. The Republicans are going to lose this election unless the economy turns into a train wreck and/or Europe succumbs to its imminent recession too soon. Obama has placed them in a checkmate no matter who wins the primary. Blame will be placed on the Christian conservatives, and they will no longer enjoy the status as the favored wing of the Republicans. This will translate into more traditional Republicanism, but I think it'll take another sound thrashing after 2012 (perhaps the 2014 midterms) before they wake up and smell the fact that Keynesianism - and dare I say it socialism - is back in vogue.
Evo
#419
Mar15-12, 06:48 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,549
Seriously? And what is his definition of pornography, scantily clad women? Playboy magazine? How many billions of dollars will he spend to keep Americans from looking at risque pictures in the privacy of their homes? No more nudity in films? Book burnings? Label all above IMO in case it's not clear that I am asking.

Rick Santorum wants to ban pornography

Rick Santorum wants to put an end to the distribution of pornography in the United States.

"America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography," Santorum's official website reads. "Pornography is toxic to marriages and relationships. It contributes to misogyny and violence against women. It is a contributing factor to prostitution and sex trafficking."

The former Pennsylvania senator states that, "as a parent, I am concerned about the widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."

Santorum criticized the Obama administration for turning "a blind eye ... to the scourge of pornography" and for refusing to enforce obscenity laws.

"If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so," Santorum writes. "While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration."
Continued...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...222833811.html
Hobin
#420
Mar15-12, 07:08 PM
P: 194
I'm not from the USA, but surely there aren't that many people who agree with Santorum on this one? Or am I underestimating the anti-pornography movement in America?
Jimmy Snyder
#421
Mar15-12, 07:12 PM
P: 2,179
That should lock up the hypocrite vote pretty tight.
mheslep
#422
Mar15-12, 08:01 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Seriously? And what is his definition of pornography, scantily clad women? ...
He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.

Quote Quote by Santorum Website
Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”
lisab
#423
Mar15-12, 08:02 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,988
Quote Quote by Hobin View Post
I'm not from the USA, but surely there aren't that many people who agree with Santorum on this one? Or am I underestimating the anti-pornography movement in America?
I'm sure there are lots who would agree with him, while they're in church. But in the privacy of their own homes...
Evo
#424
Mar15-12, 08:04 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,549
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.
There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_s...#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.
Char. Limit
#425
Mar15-12, 08:24 PM
PF Gold
Char. Limit's Avatar
P: 1,951
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
He says, "hard core" porn. Well, I know what that means. He also says on his website that distribution of hard core is already illegal, but unenforced. I don't know if that's true.
Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition. And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.
mheslep
#426
Mar15-12, 08:54 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by Char. Limit View Post
Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition.
Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?

And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.
Why? Did you read my prior post?
lisab
#427
Mar15-12, 08:57 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,988
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
There is nothing about "hardcore porn" in any laws that I could find. As far as "obscenity" goes, that's not clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_s...#United_States

I have no idea what Santorum is referring to unless it is the vague test that can be used to decide if something is obscene and can be prohibited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

IMO, Santorum is one scary person.
But just think how many jobs will be created by trying to enforce a law against hardcore porn! We'd create a Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices*, which would soon be bigger than the TSA, commensurate with the "problem" it's trying to solve.

* if "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vices" doesn't ring a bell - google it.
lisab
#428
Mar15-12, 08:59 PM
Mentor
lisab's Avatar
P: 2,988
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Graphic depiction of sex.
That's in most R rated movies -- I don't think it's hardcore.
mheslep
#429
Mar15-12, 09:02 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by lisab View Post
That's in most R rated movies -- I don't think it's hardcore.
Eh, not graphic. R doesn't show genitals doing their thing.
Evo
#430
Mar15-12, 09:04 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,549
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Graphic depiction of sex. There are, BTW, obscenity guidelines on PF. Do you have any problem with understanding those: "depicting obscene, indecent, lewd, pornographic..."?
Santorum is talking about at the federal level. Where you not referring to a federal definition? If not, I don't see the point of your post. Forum rules are a far cry from what Santorum is claiming, no?

Quote Quote by Char. Limit View Post
Since you know what "hardcore" porn means, please, do give an exact definition. And then point to the area in the legal code where it says hardcore porn is illegal.
You still haven't answered Char's request.
mheslep
#431
Mar15-12, 09:11 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,098
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
Santorum is talking about at the federal level. Where you not referring to a federal definition? If not, I don't see the point of your post. Forum rules are a far cry from what Santorum is claiming, no?
The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.
Char. Limit
#432
Mar15-12, 09:12 PM
PF Gold
Char. Limit's Avatar
P: 1,951
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
The reference to the PF case was to make the point that decency rules have been set down here without a great deal of confusion about what those terms mean, and PF rules are clearly far more restrictive than banning hardcore porn.
There's a nice difference between forum rules and federal law - namely, that good federal law HAS to be exact. Vague federal laws aren't good federal laws. You can't say the same about forum rules.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ron Paul's candidacy Current Events 578
Mitt Romney's candidacy Current Events 735
Rick Steves' Europe: Iran Current Events 4
Consider yourself Rick Roll'd General Discussion 20
Vote Rick James! General Discussion 6