It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Santorum jumps the shark. Pledges to make porn illegal

page: 22
58
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
looks you straight in the eye
then gives you something to chew on
Reps = gun control


Very interesting.

Guns aren't divided by politics - - - they're mostly divided by geographical location.

If you live in a hunting area - - don't make no difference if you are Liberal or Conservative.

IMO - - majority of anti-gunners - - - are those who live in Major Cities - - - and buy their hamburger shrink wrapped.




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
The Republicans had a perfectly good candidate, and threw him away. No, not Ron Paul---but Jon Huntsman. He had a normal pro-business Republican economic policy, but he wasn't crazy nor (even though he is very wealthy too) was he stuck in the stinky air of the money extraction class.


I don't think Jon Huntsman was seriously about this current election.

I think he was scouting for 2016.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee
 


See, you have the Statist view of John Dewey that government is here for the purpose of shaping our children in the model the State desires. You even admit it right here on this thread. The American form of government was not devised as a means to shape children's lives through a Statist program of social engineering. That all came out of the John Dewey/Humanist/Marxist point of view.


There you go again with your Communist/Socialist/Marxist paranoia. I'm surprised it took this long for it to show up in this thread.

No one is forcing you to send your child to Public Government school. You have plenty of choices on where and how to educate your child.

Public school is a privilege and we are very fortunate that we have it.

And yes - - socializing is a very big part of public school. Introducing young children to the varieties of family is very important - - because it is the society they will be growing into.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by jonnywhite
If they're going to spend millions of dollars incarcerating porn sellers/buyers then why don't they take that millions of dollars and put it into education? Sorry, this is just how I think about it. Can't help it.



To be fair, we have already pumped more money into education than most other countries, but the social engineers have been messing around with the values and mores by interfering with the parental authority via values clarification methods. Throwing more money into it is not going to change anything.

Also you should know that even John Dewey, a humanist, said that humanism is a religion and this is the basis for what is taught in schools today.


The question we ask is important. For humanism is the world view of our educational leaders, of the textbooks they write, of the psychologists who counsel our youngsters on values, sex, and death. In short, it is the world view of the curricula used in the public schools. In fact, humanism forms the philosophical basis of what passes for teacher education in our state colleges and universities.
Thus, if humanism is indeed a religion, then what we have in our public schools and state colleges and universities are government-supported establishments of religion, which are patently unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

In fact, it should be pointed out that on March 4, 1987, U.S. District Judge W. Brevard Hand, in Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Ala., ruled that secular humanism is a religion. The 172-page ruling defines religion and concludes, after reviewing the relevant aspects of humanism, that “For purposes of the First Amendment, secular humanism is a religious belief system, entitled to the protections of, and subject to the prohibitions of, the religious clauses.”



thenewamerican.com...


Interesting how you try to twist meaning of what is written to what you want it to say - - instead of what it actually says.

I suggest people read the comment section at the bottom of your link.

Humanism Is Not A Religion


THE BOULDER SUNDAY CAMERA - Guest Opinion March 29, 1987 Although it gives me pain to dispute a fellow humanist, particularly a good friend like Bill Cans (Open Forum March 16), I must register a complaint that, in the view of most humanists, secular humanism is not a religion. Rather. it is in the narrow sense an ethical philosophy of liberal scope, and in the broader sense it is the summation of all rational human knowledge. Despite the latter broad interpretation, it is interesting that the ideology has attracted so few who would accept its label. howardgarcia.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I think he is literally deranged. I'm not taking a jab, or trying to be funny, facetious.. what have you.. I really mean it. What with all the grief brought on by his stillborn child, and his current terminally ill child. He doesn't appear to be sane, and doesn't try to act sane either.

Stricken with grief and fundamentalist misery.
edit on 17-3-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
If Santorum wins, he will install CCTV cameras in every US bedroom, and those cameras will provide a direct link to his bedroom. That way, he can keep a close eye people and make sure they don't participate in indecent behaviour...obviously all while flying under the "small government" flag



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Hubby joins in: "Santorum was working on his computer when it told him to change his password. So he changed his password to Penis - - and the computer told him it was too short".



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

But, if Santorum does win the Rep nomination, does this mean the reps are defaulted into irrelevancy?



You're behind. The Republicans descended into irrelevancy years ago. They should just formally merge with the Democrat party and have done with the charade.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by HangTheTraitors

Republicans are OBSESSED with what folks do in their bedrooms.


And the Democrats are OBSESSED with every other aspect of our lives beyond that. Between the both of them, they'll regulate is into oblivion. Seriously, I can't see any difference between them in their mad grabs for power over every aspect of OTHER PEOPLE'S existence.



Yet they are perfectly fine with SLAUGHTERING and KILLING mass amounts of women and children around the world.


Don't look now - it's not a Republican directing the slaughter presently. Again we find no difference between the two...



Get a clue folks, stop electing these BASTARDS.


Yeah. ALL of the bastards.




edit on 2012/3/18 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ICEKOHLD

most women hate the idea of their man watching porn...so they're gonna vote for a guy who is gonna make that illegal.



Yeah, if she's got a problem with that, maybe she ought to give him something better to do... just layin' the law down and delivering ultimatums has left more than one blushing bride with the glaring need to hunt her own damned water buffaloes.






edit on 2012/3/18 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Again we find no difference between the two...



Who is "we"?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by nenothtu
Again we find no difference between the two...



Who is "we"?


You can take it as a generic "we" or a more specific "we" encompassing people who bother to examine the depths rather than just taking the face value claims of the alleged "TWO party system" - as if there were an actual plurality of parties under the surface.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


What is the solution?

Idealism or real world.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





What is the solution?


Well, I showed the girlfriend this article and she laughed.

She said that if this ever happened we would make porn and sell it. She said we would make a killing.


So this is what everyone could do........... Make their own porn.

What are they really going to do?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


I just don't get the logic. Prostitution, violence towards women, mysogyny it all existed before pornography, and it will continue to exist with out pornography. In fact I think many more people will seek out alternative entertainment to tickle their jiblets. I honestly think making all pornography illegal at this point will cause more harm then good. I'm all for banning illegal pornography, what ever and where ever it exists. How ever, the pornography industry makes a huge amount of money, and I like to think it keeps some of the sick and twisted from illegally obtaining material for their own pleasure, or seeking to perform the acts they desire more often than they do now, and I'm sure in some cases many individuals who watch the really harsh porn aren't capable of partaking in the real thing, so they live fantasies through pornography. How ever I can understand how one thinks pornography can lead to violence towards women, seeking out prostitutes, cheating on their wives/husbands/partner and other sexual perversions, unless it wasn't for the fact most pornography isn't made up before the desire. The large variety of pornography that exists on the internet is to serve the fantasies of the consumer. Whether the porn exists or is available doesn't matter, men and women will still do what they do, and sexual crimes will still exist. This is all cheap talk to win over the highly religious, highly conservative, high North Noses who quite often comprise a large percentage of the consumer in secret. How many times have High profile figures been found to lead very shocking secret lives.....



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


You couldn't be further from the truth.

Not anti- gun here. I just don't give a # if some yahoo wants the right to carry their compensator..err..gun with them in public.

Are we really so fearful of each other that we must arm ourselves in public?

Gun rights are nothing more than a trivial distraction. The government will ALWAYS find a way to take your guns.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Morningglory
 


That's because "faith" is a distraction.

Humans are not monogamous by nature. When religions push marriage as a good thing, they're trying to override the natural human desire to reproduce as much as possible.

It never works!

And yes, Santorum is a traitor to this country. I can't believe that this country is slipping backward with his candidacy and the attempts by certain states to control women through arcane legislation.

AMERICA, WHAT THE # IS GOING ON?



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by SaturnFX
looks you straight in the eye
then gives you something to chew on
Reps = gun control


Very interesting.

Guns aren't divided by politics - - - they're mostly divided by geographical location.

If you live in a hunting area - - don't make no difference if you are Liberal or Conservative.

IMO - - majority of anti-gunners - - - are those who live in Major Cities - - - and buy their hamburger shrink wrapped.



Probably one of the most intelligent and realistic view of gun control policy in the United States. Nice summation.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 



Are we really so fearful of each other that we must arm ourselves in public?

Rhetorical and naïve question.



Not anti- gun here. I just don't give a # if some yahoo wants the right to carry their compensator..err..gun with them in public.

If it doesn’t bother you then why do you feel the need to include childish and immature remarks? Comments like this only serve to erode the spirit of the discussion and the thread, but you know this, and therefore your contribution is overlooked by ATS members.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   


Humans are not monogamous by nature.
reply to post by The Sword
 


I agree with you here. Monogamy is not a function of biology. A species doesn't survive by practicing monogamy. I think its more true of men than I do of women. I believe, biologically, women are more monogamous than men generally. To play devil's advocate I included some animals that do practice monogamy for our reading pleasure lol: Gibbons, Swans, Black Vultures, French Angelfish, Wolves, and Termites. Just to name a few.

11 Animals that mate for life



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join