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: 9
58
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Maybe this was already said and I missed it but I did read through to check...

This is all assuming that only men watch porn. I don't wish to delve into my personal life too deeply, but I view it myself just about everynight before bed. I see no problem with it. We as HUmans, not just men, are sexual by nature. So what about the women that like it too? A lot of my girl friend's enjoy it aswell... I believe it is practically a stereotype that only men enjoy porn.

I did have a boyfriend who was rather upset over that fact too, so I decided not to do it whilst in a relationship, but single, I'm definitely watching it. I'm sorry, but I guess the Rick Santorum administration would have to prosecute me for watching pornography in the privacy of my home.

So he's trying to take away my right to contraceptives, I can't work if I'm on birth control unless my doctor says it's for acne or hormone maintenance and now my right to watch porn too?

Why is he so concerned about what I do with my privates? As long as I'm not bringing any children into this world, because admittedly there'd be no way I could handle it right now, then who cares?

This is just another example of how our rights are trying to be taken away, little by little. They're doing it one at a time so the asleep, brainwashed, general population doesn't even notice. He is trying to take us back to the early 1900's where women had hardly any rights. We already FOUGHT for all of this years ago, why unravel everything we fought for? Are all of those women's efforts becoming simply futile?

Soon we'll be lined up marching into FEMA camps


edit on 17-3-2012 by GreenEyedVixen because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You also have the freedom to Go To Hell following whatever you consider your "freedom and liberty".

No man has the right to SIN in God's eyes....without out paying for that sin. You reap what you sow, karma, the circle of life....etc.

Be careful what you wish for in your liberty. I'm all for the government outlawing sins that are clearly labeled as sins in the HOLY Bible.


Pornography is not a sin in the holy bible. I've read it , Pornography isn't even mentioned. Go ahead. Even this website which like you is anti-porn admits that God never said anything about porn.




Even though the Bible does not say anything about pornography.



carm.org...


So are you going to debate some one on your own side of the argument or admit you've falsely taken the word of blind prophets , humans speaking in the name of the lord?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611
 


Is this a troll?

Anyway, if we assume that god of the Bible actually exists and christianity is true, why should it be the government role to outlaw sin? People should decide for themselves whether they want to follow gods commands (and reap the consequences if they dont), government should not do it for them. Thats against the whole spirit of christianity - personal choice to follow gods commandments. Not forced by the government.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
He is right about one thing - hard core porn is very bad for people. It's addictive. (really!)
And it does demean women and promote violence against them.


It doesn't promote violence against women. If that was the case, 90% of the women in Sweden would be in the Hospitals, as Porn is very popular there and hardcore stuff is even shown on TV.
Here in Germany on 1-2 stations we have hours and hours of softcore porn stuff and until about 15 years ago it was very common for a few tv stations to show porn movies (albeit slightly censored) and guess what? Nothing bad came from it. Same goes for all the swinger clubs, gangbang events, sex parties and other real sex events you can find in every big city here on every weekend.

And speaking of addiction, everything can be addictive, should we ban everything because of it? Don't think so.
Doesn't make porn 'bad' for people. So what if some people watch a porn movie every day? I don't see how this can be bad.

I know a lot of americans are very prude and see sex as something evil, but in the 21st Century, there's no need to demonize Sex and porn anymore.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611
 





You also have the freedom to Go To Hell following whatever you consider your "freedom and liberty".




I'm all for the government outlawing sins that are clearly labeled as sins in the HOLY Bible.


Shouldnt you dust your feet off and leave if your views are not accepted instead of forcing them on non-believers?

Control freaks like you are some of the worst. Take care of your own soul and let God judge mine as written in your holy book, instead of the government.



"Vengeance Is Mine, I Will Repay,"



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
Could someone give me the literal meaning of " Jumping the Shark"

Does it have a situational meaning.

I put that term together with the subject matter being discussed and the mind boggles.

Perhaps 'Jumping the ..... " has different meanings around the world, sharks, ok, each to their own.

P


It comes from the TV sitcom Happy Days when Fonzie did a water ski jump - - - over a shark.

It first meant when a TV show did something ridiculous and over-the-top (desperation) to hold its audience when the show was in decline.


In a television show, to include an over-the-top scene or plot twist that is indicative either of an irreversible decline in the show's quality or of a desperate bid to stem the show's declining ratings.

Yet, your friendly neighborhood TV critic feels compelled to point out that one of the reasons the term is used so much is it's just so useful. Coined by Jon Hein at the University of Michigan back in the '80s, it refers to the moment when something — particularly a TV series — peaks and begins to go downhill into self-parody and decay. It originally referred to the "Happy Days" episode in which Fonzie literally tried to jump a shark in a daredevil water-skiing stunt. wordspy.com...



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Welp, there goes his only shot at the presidency. This guy practically alienates the 80% of the male American population by wanting to do that



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   


It's addictive. (really!)


Surprise: pleasurable things can be addictive!

Mental addiction (as opposed to physical addiciton present for some drugs) is no grounds for a ban.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


I agree, if we wish to argue porn is addictive, which I agree it is as I'm probably addicted myself and just don't realise it...

Then we can say that the internet in general is addictive, so ban it.

Video games are highly addictive(maybe just to me), ban them.

Sounds stupid, but shopping and make up is a personal addiction of mine, ban it.

Sodas become addictive to a lot of people, ban those too.

OHWAIT, alcoholics are prevalent, even before they turn 21 so this should be prohibited too! (What's this remind you of
)

Food can become highly addictive, so ban it.

Let's just ban life and call it a day.

edit on 17-3-2012 by GreenEyedVixen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Like Mitt Romney, the more I listen to Rick Santorum the more insincere he sounds. The more he spouts his hate-filled religious dogma the more transparent he becomes. He will be his own undoing. Who can really take these politicians seriously?

None these politicians are worthy of my vote at this time. The reality is that I may not be standing at a voting booth when the time arrives. I certainly won't vote for the status quo and I refuse to vote for a candidate because he or she is the "lesser of two evils."



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


You also have the freedom to Go To Hell following whatever you consider your "freedom and liberty".

No man has the right to SIN in God's eyes....without out paying for that sin. You reap what you sow, karma, the circle of life....etc.

Be careful what you wish for in your liberty. I'm all for the government outlawing sins that are clearly labeled as sins in the HOLY Bible.


So what you are saying is that you are okay with unconstitutional censorship and laws, so long as you agree with them? If these people watching porn all day are going to burn in hell for ever and ever (according to your silly book) then why is it your place or Santorums place to? God isn't doing anything to stop it (or anything else) and according to you, he has a punishment lined up and waiting. Please don't force us all to live by your silly book.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Prostitution is the oldest profesion long before porn. But i am curious what he think's hardcore porn is, i'm thinking the difference between rated mature or xxx, maybe his line.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
on second thought, maybe he should just tax the living beejesus out of it ?

ow wait, nobody pays for it anymore



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
You know the saddest part of all this is that Republican party is surely throwing out their best candidates to beat Obama...

What I see is the Republicsns throwing out their lesser candidates in a incumbant election year because Washington and elections ar all a big game. So they throw out their extremist and nut jobs with no expectation of actually winning. Then when the next election in 2016 comes up they will throw out their real candidates.

I am not big fan of Obama in fact I am quite saddened that he literally turned out worse then what I expected when he first ran for office. The really sad part is that most people are not voting for him because he actually did anything or does anything. They are voting for the BS line and story they bought into of the so called savior of America, and as unpopular as it might be i think a lot of people are scared to vote against him for fear of being called racist *just my opinion*

That being said my personal life is my personal life, and the Republican and Democratic Party can keep their hands off my civil liberties that are given to me by the constituion that I so proudly stand by. The Republicans are known for their psycho religious babble, so not to concerned about it, and its more then likely just another one of those BS lines that will go nowhere. How many times have they sworn to end Abortion that never happened? I wouldn't worry to much over it myselfm, but on the off chance they did ban porn. You can be sure you will still be able to find it.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Romney will get the nomination because that is what the Establishment wants and Romney claims he will repeal Obamneycare.....hope you see the tongue in cheek satire.

As for porn, I think it is a debasement and depraved but if we go down that road what's the difference between that and Michelle O telling us we can't be over a certain BFI?



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic911
The reality is that I may not be standing at a voting booth when the time arrives. I certainly won't vote for the status quo and I refuse to vote for a candidate because he or she is the "lesser of two evils."



Well - - the reality is - - something like 50% of Americans are religious enough to vote for someone like Santorum.

I would definitely be at the voting booth voting against him - - voting for the "lesser of two evils".

Never underestimate the religious vote.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
LOL He's just upset because his last name is Santorum
google it!



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Phantom28804
 


If POTUS wasn't incumbent, who would the Democrat Party be "throwing out" ? Dean? Gore? Edwards? Nancee? oh wait Hillary, she's been waiting in the wings and is a continuance of Obamneycare for sure. Or maybe they would pick one of the OWS people. They have so many Presidential qualities, or how about Sandra? Then she can advocate for mandatory contraception paid for by taxpayers in Obamneycare and just sign an EO for Holdren to medicate the water supplies with it too.

edit on 17-3-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Phantom28804
 


If POTUS wasn't incumbent, who would the Democrat Party be "throwing out" ? Dean? Gore? Edwards? Nancee? oh wait Hillary, she's been waiting in the wings and is a continuance of Obamneycare for sure. Or maybe they would pick one of the OWS people. They have so many Presidential qualities, or how about Sandra? Then she can advocate for mandatory contraception paid for by taxpayers in Obamneycare and just sign an EO for Holdren to medicate the water supplies with it too.

edit on 17-3-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


The high price of gas has doomed Obama.

The DNC will have to trot out Hillary Clinton soon.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


The other half is Marxist and voted for Rev Wright's proxy.




top topics



 
58
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join