Conquer Club

Mitt Romney vows to ban pornography by installing a filter on every U.S. PC

Before he was the presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney was just a guy giving a speech, trying to woo conservative voters. In 2007 Romney exposed some of his more extreme positions when, while speaking during a town hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa at the Hotel Ottuma. One such position which Mitt rarely discloses about now is his deep desire to make it mandatory for pornography filters to be added to all new computers entering The United States.

In specific Romney said, "I want to make sure every new computer sold in this country, after I'm president, has installed on it a filter to block all pornography." He went on to say that he would do it for the children.

Now you could say well, "Romney just said it once. Maybe I can let that slide." Except here is another video, from a different day, where he says the exact same thing. In fact, he begins his statement with the exact same phrase, "clean up the dirty water."

OMG

Juan_Bottom wrote:Mitt Romney vows to ban pornography by installing a filter on every U.S. PC

Before he was the presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney was just a guy giving a speech, trying to woo conservative voters. In 2007 Romney exposed some of his more extreme positions when, while speaking during a town hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa at the Hotel Ottuma. One such position which Mitt rarely discloses about now is his deep desire to make it mandatory for pornography filters to be added to all new computers entering The United States.

In specific Romney said, "I want to make sure every new computer sold in this country, after I'm president, has installed on it a filter to block all pornography." He went on to say that he would do it for the children.

Now you could say well, "Romney just said it once. Maybe I can let that slide." Except here is another video, from a different day, where he says the exact same thing. In fact, he begins his statement with the exact same phrase, "clean up the dirty water."

OMG

Wow. This guy actually thinks such a thing is even feasible? Not to even mention all the other problems with such idiocy...

Is a partial lobotomy a requirement for presidential candidacy in the USA perhaps?

natty dread wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Mitt Romney vows to ban pornography by installing a filter on every U.S. PC

Before he was the presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney was just a guy giving a speech, trying to woo conservative voters. In 2007 Romney exposed some of his more extreme positions when, while speaking during a town hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa at the Hotel Ottuma. One such position which Mitt rarely discloses about now is his deep desire to make it mandatory for pornography filters to be added to all new computers entering The United States.

In specific Romney said, "I want to make sure every new computer sold in this country, after I'm president, has installed on it a filter to block all pornography." He went on to say that he would do it for the children.

Now you could say well, "Romney just said it once. Maybe I can let that slide." Except here is another video, from a different day, where he says the exact same thing. In fact, he begins his statement with the exact same phrase, "clean up the dirty water."

OMG

Wow. This guy actually thinks such a thing is even feasible? Not to even mention all the other problems with such idiocy...

Is a partial lobotomy a requirement for presidential candidacy in the USA perhaps?

Here's Cicero on the Art of Politics:

(Yeah, it's long, but if anyone here reads it, then US politics will make a lot more sense--especially in regard to making all kinds of promises before the election, and why it's reasonable to disregard such promises.

show

Juan_Bottom wrote:Mitt Romney vows to ban pornography by installing a filter on every U.S. PC

Before he was the presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney was just a guy giving a speech, trying to woo conservative voters. In 2007 Romney exposed some of his more extreme positions when, while speaking during a town hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa at the Hotel Ottuma. One such position which Mitt rarely discloses about now is his deep desire to make it mandatory for pornography filters to be added to all new computers entering The United States.

In specific Romney said, "I want to make sure every new computer sold in this country, after I'm president, has installed on it a filter to block all pornography." He went on to say that he would do it for the children.

Now you could say well, "Romney just said it once. Maybe I can let that slide." Except here is another video, from a different day, where he says the exact same thing. In fact, he begins his statement with the exact same phrase, "clean up the dirty water."

OMG

Far be it from me to defend Romney, but the way I take his point is that he wants parents to have the capability to filter porn from coming to their computers, not a hardline "porn can't come to any computers" stance.

Of course, this already exists, I know...but I just thought I should point out it doesn't necessarily match the worst case, and I don't believe that's what he meant.

For being such a "pro-business" dude, doesn't Romney understand that this will crush the hand lotion market? Not to mention the porn industry, and California needs her porn taxes.

Woodruff wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Mitt Romney vows to ban pornography by installing a filter on every U.S. PC

Before he was the presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney was just a guy giving a speech, trying to woo conservative voters. In 2007 Romney exposed some of his more extreme positions when, while speaking during a town hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa at the Hotel Ottuma. One such position which Mitt rarely discloses about now is his deep desire to make it mandatory for pornography filters to be added to all new computers entering The United States.

In specific Romney said, "I want to make sure every new computer sold in this country, after I'm president, has installed on it a filter to block all pornography." He went on to say that he would do it for the children.

Now you could say well, "Romney just said it once. Maybe I can let that slide." Except here is another video, from a different day, where he says the exact same thing. In fact, he begins his statement with the exact same phrase, "clean up the dirty water."

OMG

Far be it from me to defend Romney, but the way I take his point is that he wants parents to have the capability to filter porn from coming to their computers, not a hardline "porn can't come to any computers" stance.

Of course, this already exists, I know...but I just thought I should point out it doesn't necessarily match the worst case, and I don't believe that's what he meant.

It exists... but if you want an internet connected PC & and you have kids you have to...
1) Pay for Filter
2) Be smart enough to setup and manage filter.
3) Be smart enough to know your kids will beat the filter... so keep and eye on them anyway.

I personally do all three.

That said.. it would be nice if websites could be forced to send a signal identifying to filtering software what exactly the content was...

A rating system like video games and TV and movies... rating from 1-10 say their content on violence, sexuality, etc. Then filtering software would work better and be easier to manage.

That said it will never happen... and even if it did, most lazy ass parent still wouldn't bother. I wonder how many filter out explicit content on their cable boxes?

Hah, it took me 3 seconds to go to the Firefox Add-ons and type "filter" in the search box.

Free and functional.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

natty dread wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Mitt Romney vows to ban pornography by installing a filter on every U.S. PC

Before he was the presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney was just a guy giving a speech, trying to woo conservative voters. In 2007 Romney exposed some of his more extreme positions when, while speaking during a town hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa at the Hotel Ottuma. One such position which Mitt rarely discloses about now is his deep desire to make it mandatory for pornography filters to be added to all new computers entering The United States.

In specific Romney said, "I want to make sure every new computer sold in this country, after I'm president, has installed on it a filter to block all pornography." He went on to say that he would do it for the children.

Now you could say well, "Romney just said it once. Maybe I can let that slide." Except here is another video, from a different day, where he says the exact same thing. In fact, he begins his statement with the exact same phrase, "clean up the dirty water."

OMG

Wow. This guy actually thinks such a thing is even feasible? Not to even mention all the other problems with such idiocy...

Is a partial lobotomy a requirement for presidential candidacy in the USA perhaps?

Here's Cicero on the Art of Politics:

(Yeah, it's long, but if anyone here reads it, then US politics will make a lot more sense--especially in regard to making all kinds of promises before the election, and why it's reasonable to disregard such promises.

show

You just work for Romney and, knowing the kind of negative flak this campaign promise brings, are trying to diffuse the anti-Romney sentiment on this site.


douche

Army of GOD wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

natty dread wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Mitt Romney vows to ban pornography by installing a filter on every U.S. PC

Before he was the presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney was just a guy giving a speech, trying to woo conservative voters. In 2007 Romney exposed some of his more extreme positions when, while speaking during a town hall meeting in Ottumwa, Iowa at the Hotel Ottuma. One such position which Mitt rarely discloses about now is his deep desire to make it mandatory for pornography filters to be added to all new computers entering The United States.

In specific Romney said, "I want to make sure every new computer sold in this country, after I'm president, has installed on it a filter to block all pornography." He went on to say that he would do it for the children.

Now you could say well, "Romney just said it once. Maybe I can let that slide." Except here is another video, from a different day, where he says the exact same thing. In fact, he begins his statement with the exact same phrase, "clean up the dirty water."

OMG

Wow. This guy actually thinks such a thing is even feasible? Not to even mention all the other problems with such idiocy...

Is a partial lobotomy a requirement for presidential candidacy in the USA perhaps?

Here's Cicero on the Art of Politics:

(Yeah, it's long, but if anyone here reads it, then US politics will make a lot more sense--especially in regard to making all kinds of promises before the election, and why it's reasonable to disregard such promises.

show

You just work for Romney and, knowing the kind of negative flak this campaign promise brings, are trying to diffuse the anti-Romney sentiment on this site.


douche

I see your douche, kindly ask you to get a clean one, then raise you three douches.

YOUR MOVE, ASSHOLE!!!!!1

jimboston wrote:
That said.. it would be nice if websites could be forced

Fascist.

natty dread wrote:

jimboston wrote:
That said.. it would be nice if websites could be forced

Fascist.

That really doesn't seem to me to be an onerous thing. I believe it would even work to their advantage, to be honest.

why in the f*ck are we bothering to filter porn in the first place?


I know I'm speaking hypothetically becuse I don't have kids currently, but I hope to god I don't care if my kids look at porn.

please, someone tell me the negatives of a kid under 18 watching porn? would you rather he get so horny he has sex with someone and get preggers/someone else preggers/get an STD?

Army of GOD wrote:why in the f*ck are we bothering to filter porn in the first place?


I know I'm speaking hypothetically becuse I don't have kids currently, but I hope to god I don't care if my kids look at porn.

please, someone tell me the negatives of a kid under 18 watching porn? would you rather he get so horny he has sex with someone and get preggers/someone else preggers/get an STD?

Well, on principle I agree with you. However, porn - especially mainstream porn - can give children, who have no contextual framework to place it in, wrong ideas about sex. Especially if there's no other source of sexual education in the child's life. So some caveats apply.

But assuming that you explain to your child that real life sex doesn't really work like it does in porn, and give the child access to proper sex education, I don't see any reason why kids should be prevented from watching porn as soon as they are interested in it.

Army of GOD wrote:why in the f*ck are we bothering to filter porn in the first place?

I know I'm speaking hypothetically becuse I don't have kids currently, but I hope to god I don't care if my kids look at porn.

please, someone tell me the negatives of a kid under 18 watching porn? would you rather he get so horny he has sex with someone and get preggers/someone else preggers/get an STD?

There really are negatives, and of course they apply on a per-situation basis. Mainstream porn can give young people an unrealistic view of sex, as well as a damaged view of how the opposite sex should be treated. This is due to their inexperience with those things at the time. I'm not at all saying it WILL, not by any means. But unless the parents are quite involved with their kids (always the key!), and have helped their kids to understand these things already, it is a serious potential.

Plus, it appeals to the conservatives because SEX IS BAD.

I watched the video, it's clear he is just talking about random stuff that old people hate. M rated video games not being sold to minors? I get carded every freaking time thanks to Jack Thompson.
To contrast this, I have never been carded once when buying cigarettes or lottery tickets.

natty dread wrote:

jimboston wrote:
That said.. it would be nice if websites could be forced

Fascist.

Like forcing websites is any different than regulating them...

separately, the Octomom has kicked welfare and gotten a job! I always said the negative stereotype that comes iwth receiving welfare is not deserved!

Nadya Suleman, better known as “Octomom,” upset many Americans with the announcement that she had decided to go on welfare back in April.

The mother of fourteen, eight of whom she gave birth to in 2009 through in-vitro fertilization, defended her decision at the time, saying: “I still am working as hard as I possibly can to support them.”

She added that she was reluctant to accept public assistance, but concluded: “[My] priority is my children, their health, their well-being, their safety…Who cares how I feel? Who cares about me? It’s 100 percent about my children.’’

She told Matt Lauer at the time that, despite posing topless for a British magazine, she drew the line at pornography.

“I won’t touch other human flesh. The only flesh I’m touching is my own,” she said.

She regrettably continued: “I have to be the ultimate positive role model for my children.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, congratulations to “Octomom” for getting off welfare, but unfortunately, it was her newly-launched pornographic career that seemingly made her enough money to be independent.

According to the Huffington Post, the 36-year-old single mother attempts to pose in a “sexy manner” while surrounded by baby clothes a number of the graphic photos. In others, she is depicted ironing, while still others show her covered in SpaghettiOs.

“I am so grateful for all the amazing opportunities that have come my way and I am finally in a stable situation,” Suleman told E! News. “I will keep working as much as I can to take care of my children.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/so-grat ... rnography/

If Romney filters internet porn after he is elected, then we won't get to see Octo-porn!

GreecePwns wrote:Hah, it took me 3 seconds to go to the Firefox Add-ons and type "filter" in the search box.

Free and functional.

Congrats... this makes your more technically competent than 95% of adult Americans.

natty dread wrote:

jimboston wrote:
That said.. it would be nice if websites could be forced

Fascist.

Take quote out of context much?

I'm not proposiong that the gov't limit porn in any way... nor am I proposing that we track people's viewing of porn.

I simply propose that we require the code to identify the material... so the browser's filter could be made to operate properly.

It's the Internet equivalent of those plastic bags that hide the covers of Playboy, Centerfold, etc. at the 7/11.
Is that so onerous?

Army of GOD wrote:why in the f*ck are we bothering to filter porn in the first place?


I know I'm speaking hypothetically becuse I don't have kids currently, but I hope to god I don't care if my kids look at porn.

please, someone tell me the negatives of a kid under 18 watching porn? would you rather he get so horny he has sex with someone and get preggers/someone else preggers/get an STD?

I don't think an 18yo is going to get messed up watching porn.

I also don't think that it's cool for a 3-5yo to watch it.

A 5yo has limited understanding of what is or is not appropriate in public. My 5yo regularly flips up her skirt and laughs at the reaction she gets. (I'm talking about emulation of the scene from the movie Brave... where the old Scottish guy bends over and moons the other guys and says "Feast your eyes.")

If young kids are exposed to porn... what's to stop them from trying to recreate those scenes??? Would you think that's developmentally appropriate?

If you can't understand this... you will when you have kids.

natty dread wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:why in the f*ck are we bothering to filter porn in the first place?


I know I'm speaking hypothetically becuse I don't have kids currently, but I hope to god I don't care if my kids look at porn.

please, someone tell me the negatives of a kid under 18 watching porn? would you rather he get so horny he has sex with someone and get preggers/someone else preggers/get an STD?

Well, on principle I agree with you. However, porn - especially mainstream porn - can give children, who have no contextual framework to place it in, wrong ideas about sex. Especially if there's no other source of sexual education in the child's life. So some caveats apply.

But assuming that you explain to your child that real life sex doesn't really work like it does in porn, and give the child access to proper sex education, I don't see any reason why kids should be prevented from watching porn as soon as they are interested in it.

You can explain stuff like that to a 12yo maybe, to a 16yo certainly. Not to a 3yo.

Woodruff wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:why in the f*ck are we bothering to filter porn in the first place?

I know I'm speaking hypothetically becuse I don't have kids currently, but I hope to god I don't care if my kids look at porn.

please, someone tell me the negatives of a kid under 18 watching porn? would you rather he get so horny he has sex with someone and get preggers/someone else preggers/get an STD?

There really are negatives, and of course they apply on a per-situation basis. Mainstream porn can give young people an unrealistic view of sex, as well as a damaged view of how the opposite sex should be treated. This is due to their inexperience with those things at the time. I'm not at all saying it WILL, not by any means. But unless the parents are quite involved with their kids (always the key!), and have helped their kids to understand these things already, it is a serious potential.

Plus, it appeals to the conservatives because SEX IS BAD.

Agree with bolded sentence.

... most importantly you need to be involved.

The filter is just a tool... not the end-all-be-all answer by any means.

/ wrote:I watched the video, it's clear he is just talking about random stuff that old people hate. M rated video games not being sold to minors? I get carded every freaking time thanks to Jack Thompson.
To contrast this, I have never been carded once when buying cigarettes or lottery tickets.

... and getting carded is a problem because???

If you look under 25yo you should be carded for cigarettes too.

jim, while you're making a post, you can scroll under it and hit quote to group your messages together. I'd like for you to do that for now on, thanks.

-rd

Phatscotty wrote:Octomom!

You know, I think I saw one of her videos on pornhub the other day. Can't link to it here, obviously. Good stuff.

Anyway, I think it's great Octomom has found herself honest work and is able to support her family. Good for her.
I assume you agree, since you're always ranting against government handouts?

jimboston wrote:You can explain stuff like that to a 12yo maybe, to a 16yo certainly. Not to a 3yo.

3 year olds aren't usually interested in porn, or capable of using a computer.

jimboston wrote:Take quote out of context much?

No

jimboston wrote:I simply propose that we require the code to identify the material...

And how exactly do you propose this would be enforced? Who is going to go through the code of all 367 million websites and see which ones are following the rule? And what will be done to the websites that don't comply?

Furthermore, how would you going to get every country in the world to agree to enforce this rule? Do you even realize the internet exists globally?

And not least of all: who would pay for all of this? Taxpayers?

If you're so worried that your kids might accidentally see a nipple or two, you can just keep them away from the computer, or don't let them use it unsupervised. But don't expect everyone else in the world to pay for your kids.