Santorum jumps the shark. Pledges to make porn illegal

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
California is bizarre.

I have no idea what in world is going to happen out there.

As long as Ahnold doesn't endorse Romney he'll win that state.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
And what is it with this phrase "x jumps the shark" anyway?

What the heck does it mean?

And why is it only conservatives can ride the shark and not liberals? Why is it when obama does something unpopular he never jumps the shark?

Maybe it should be better phrased as "humps the shark"?

As in "Obama humps the shark"?

You having some sort of Barack-attack?
This thread is..about the subject matter at hand. Feel free to make your own thread and use the title of shark jumping if it applies.
As far as what it means. Google is your friends (think happy days)

reply to post by jacktorrance


As I understand this, and please correct me if I'm wrong, Santorum is just trying to get hard core porn off the internet. I haven't heard him say anything in regards to purchasing it in a store.

I have no interest in regulating what people enjoy. I just think that some things don't need to be online. If you're too embarrassed to walk into a store and buy "Penny Gets Punched and Pumped", that's your problem.
I think people just want everything on the internet because they think they're being anonymous about it. They aren't. I simply think that some stuff shouldn't be available online and should be sold in a store where only 18 and up can puchase it and view it in the comfort of their own home.

Also, if hard core violent porn had to be produced on DVD/BluRay, it could be more easily monitored to make sure that underage girls weren't being used and drugs weren't a variable in the equation. Like I said, I've seen some horrible stuff that only drug addicts would do. It's a real shame that people get aroused by watching it. Yet, it's their freedom to do so and should have to go to an adult store to get it. I just don't see what's so difficult about this except for the fact that it's embarrassing for the buyer.

reply to post by Afterthought


Violent S&M?

People do consent to this stuff sometimes.

I'd prefer a greater crackdown on child porn, fecal porn and beastiality.

Whenever some politician promises to make porn illegal, I am reminded of kid school elections where the popular kid promises to make recess longer.

How about education around pornography? How about better enforcement of the disturbing end of the scale?

reply to post by Afterthought


It's doubtful rabbits have porn shops with s & m paraphernalia either.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Well, RINO's are not for small govt. If they were they wouldn't be promoting things like RomneyCare. Don't worry though liberal Democrats are not for small govt either, they just want Big Govt in a different way, they want universal healthcare and global climate change taxes.

Don't worry about the global climate change taxes. The hoax has been exposed.

U.S. Senator James Inhofe has a great new book out. I already read the sample chapters

on Amazon.com after he was interviewed by Sean Hannity - Fox News.

It's called The Greatest Hoax.

reply to post by The Sword

I'd prefer a greater crackdown on child porn, fecal porn and beastiality.

I agree and I'm including these when I'm talking about violent porn.

People are not understanding me when I say violent porn, so I'll say it again.
I'm not talking about your typical whips and smacks. I'm talking about really causing pain while the man is telling the woman to shut up and that she knows she likes it.

Ever seen the movie "8 mm"?
I'm talking about the stuff that's one degree away from being a snuff film. Sure, the participants may be consenting because they want the money or drugs that will be paid to them. Is this what we want on the internet though?

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


You got to look at the numbers voting for them in the primaries. I haven't counted but its roughly several hundred thousans. Hardly representative of the US.

Is it scarey that there that many stone agers to begin with? Yes.

but The generation is dying out. Now the other 300 million modern people can vote on real issues.

The democrats are keeping quiet and just watching these guys hang the GOP.

Originally posted by jacktorrance
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Slightly off topic, but I agree about the psychology field promoting a gimmick of addiction in a way.

A few years ago, no one was addicted to sex, porn, video games, texting. Now all sorts are coming out of the woodwork.

I have a hard time feeling sympathy for a person addicted to something that, when they quit doing it for a period of time, has absolutely no negative affect on them at all.

It is not a bad thing to have a good look at our actions, our abuses, etc...I don't mind the "therapy nation" as I see it as a sign of prosperity...we have the luxury due to a strong nation of being able to debate about the mundane things, such as addiction to pleasure and such. It is "golden" eras such as this, ancient greece, etc where some of the more profound understandings of human existance comes to light to last through the ages.

I just don't buy into the addiction of pleasure..of course we are addicted to good things...our body is designed for just that. Self control stops us from damaging ourselves with anything dangerous most of the time (except for synthetic things that screw up ones self preservation). And ya, anything that has no major drawbacks when going cold turkey should not be considered an addiction.

A sex addict quitting sex still wants sex..go figure, they are still alive. heh.

reply to post by Afterthought


You bring up an important point...the Internet, and I believe that as soon as we start to regulate what's on the Internet we go down the slippery slope of everything on the Net being regulated, monitored, and so on...oh wait we are being monitored, what was I thinking? But who knows what kind of monitoring would come out of an attempt like that.

I'm about 1/2 way through this thread, but I had to add my input here.

Ban porn? What about all the people that would place out of work. Camera men, prop and makeup people, strippers, exotic dancers.....! The list is endless!

Why, I just a made a purchase at "F Street" for a bridal shower, a penis shaped cake pan, she's a baker, and loads of other penis shaped candies, confetti, suckers.......and other naughty stuff.

Rick Santorum is the "PARTY POOPER!"

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by jacktorrance
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Slightly off topic, but I agree about the psychology field promoting a gimmick of addiction in a way.

A few years ago, no one was addicted to sex, porn, video games, texting. Now all sorts are coming out of the woodwork.

I have a hard time feeling sympathy for a person addicted to something that, when they quit doing it for a period of time, has absolutely no negative affect on them at all.

It is not a bad thing to have a good look at our actions, our abuses, etc...I don't mind the "therapy nation" as I see it as a sign of prosperity...we have the luxury due to a strong nation of being able to debate about the mundane things, such as addiction to pleasure and such. It is "golden" eras such as this, ancient greece, etc where some of the more profound understandings of human existance comes to light to last through the ages.

I just don't buy into the addiction of pleasure..of course we are addicted to good things...our body is designed for just that. Self control stops us from damaging ourselves with anything dangerous most of the time (except for synthetic things that screw up ones self preservation). And ya, anything that has no major drawbacks when going cold turkey should not be considered an addiction.



A sex addict quitting sex still wants sex..go figure, they are still alive. heh.

People who say there is no such thing as addiction should just consider themselves lucky they don't have an addictive gene. But just because you don't have an addictiver personality, doesn't mean the condition doesn't exist.

Our bodies are designed for a lot of things. But it doesn't mean that self control or self preservation is functional and working. We are also the result of our upbringing, and our ability to do a lot of things, will power, control, safety, is affected, and is never created equal.

No two people are playing with the same set of legos.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Can you or anyone tell me why everything has to be online?

What about the independently owned adult porn stores? Everyone always wants to keep the "mom and pop" stores from going under, so isn't the internet going to kill these stores?

I guess everyone won't be happy until you are forced to get everything online.

Slippery slope indeed.

reply to post by Afterthought


No you're right. Just off the internet. (For now, I don't see it being a great leap from none on the internet to none available at all, but that's another topic..) But it's a really slippery slope.

There is "normal" porn, that doesn't include violence, where I'm sure there are people getting paid with drugs. Or getting paid with cash, that they in turn choose to spend on drugs.
There is porn that isn't violent in any way to women, but still contains underage girls..

The Australian govt. banned porn that included "young looking" women with small breast to curb the possibility that it might be underage girls on film. It hasn't been well received for obvious reasons.

Like I said, if it's illegal - child/underage porn, or snuff films (which have yet to even been proven real) then ban it. Stop the people that are producing it, promoting it, or storing it on their computers - which police and law makers are trying to do.

As for anything else, leave it alone.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Titen-Sxull

 

You got to look at the numbers voting for them in the primaries. I haven't counted but its roughly several hundred thousans. Hardly representative of the US.

Is it scarey that there that many stone agers to begin with? Yes.

but The generation is dying out. Now the other 300 million modern people can vote on real issues.

The democrats are keeping quiet and just watching these guys hang the GOP.

edit on 17-3-2012 by nixie_nox because: typ0s

So you can't wait for all the baby boomers to die off because you think they are all goofball GOP who want Internet Porn to die? That is such an outrageous misunderstanding of demographics I ever heard. Don't you know how many baby boomers are the hard core commies, socialists, anarchists, drughead hippies who abandoned the no-plastic-society hatred of materialism in favor of trading in stock in Solyndra?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by jacktorrance

 

I guess if a person did want to watch that kind of porn, then having to go to a store to purchase it could limit their ability to view it.

So, maybe we're getting closer to the fact that this is an embarrassing enjoyment.
People would rather have access to violent porn through the internet, so they don't have to be red faced buying it in a store.

as a -personal- conservative...(aka, private person whom wants outside society to not know a damn thing about me beyond being polite) I get redfaced at a store renting even softcore stuff.

(Of course, if you know me, you will realize I am quite the opposite of public perception)

I enjoy the net and its ability not to broadcast to the 20 year old counter worker what my fetishes are...or even how normal I am. I like my privacy.
I also don't like getting super junky food at the supermarket, because I don't like the occasional judgmental stare by some fitness freak seeing my diet soda and hot pocket cache...if buying groceries online was feasible, I would do that also.

Why is public ridicule an acceptable thing to push for in your mind?

If you have an issue with lingerie, do you push to have all lingerie stores be made of glass and no changing room so you can embarrass people into not buying it...because you personally are offended someone may be wearing lingerie in their home?

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by mastahunta

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by tooo many pills

How is this guy basically the frontrunner for conservatives?

THIS.

He isn't - Ron Paul is. It's just that the GOP and MSM have led you to believe otherwise.

Conservatism is defined by the people who shape conservatism, not by the ideas in your
head. This is conservatism, while Ron Paul is a small portion of it.

You should stick to topics you are familiar with, like Marxism. I suppose you think the MSM is totally unbiased as well.

Unfortunately, reality has a liberal bias, I cannot help it that conservatives can't except reality.
Conservatism is Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran, burn the gays, ban the porno, stick cameras in the
women, color coded terror charts as well as some of Ron Paul's ideas. You can't handle the
truth so you live in perpetual denial. When you vote for the candidate that does and advocates
for exactly those things you deny are you being a RINO?

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Can you or anyone tell me why everything has to be online?

What about the independently owned adult porn stores? Everyone always wants to keep the "mom and pop" stores from going under, so isn't the internet going to kill these stores?

I guess everyone won't be happy until you are forced to get everything online.

Slippery slope indeed.

I am not into porn, so I really know very little of this activity. But what I do know is that many attempts at monitoring the Internet are going to happen because it is the final frontier and no stone will be left unturned for the Establishment. I am mainly against Orwellian Totalitarian communist/socialist/globalist/whateverist control of our lives.
George Orwell himself knew of the dangers of Totalitarianism and communism as his novel really outlined the total control communists would have over our lives. His book is really based on that concept.

Well he basically just guaranteed himself not getting elected, lol.

Are these really the best people we could find for the job? I would laugh if it wasn't so damn sad.