Ashcroft vs. consent - Administration wages war on pornography

[Gaard]

It's hard to know the agenda with Romans running around posting pro Bush propoganda under 3 different accounts. Anyone wanna guess what those accounts are?

Isn't that a bannable offense? I wonder if I'll get in trouble if I make another account with GrassHopper28 as my screen name?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: przero
And the pornographer's should stop cramming there filth down my e-mail! Any suggestions?

Get a spam filter. Isn't it the republicians that are always talking about personal resposiblty now you want some one else to censor your email for you?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: przero
No it was my mistake. I thought this was a discussion on the merits of a war on porn and if the administrations policies were correct/incorrect. But there can be no discussion here if the original premise is Bush is wrong. Beat him up boys. When you want a DISCUSSION. call me.

War on porn? What the hell? When was the war on porn declared? Look people, Ashcroft was appointed by Bush, his policies are the administration's policies, which are Bush's policies. Yes, it reflects poorly on Bush as well as the administration as a whole, when Ashcroft decides to take on the porn industry -- and not just target child porn or something equally as harmful. I mean come on, doesn't he have anything better to do? Hell, I could come up with a laundry list of more important crap Ashcroft should be worrying about.

Yes, the administration's policies are incorrect for obvious reasons. You wanna fight child porn? Then go ahead and do so, then come back and talk to me.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: przero
Bowfinger - Sorry, but you must not be up to an intelligent discussion.
Some people believe that all porn is O.K. ,freedom of speech, etc. Some people believe porn between consenting adults is fine just no kids, animals, etc. Some people believe that should do away with the Victoria's Secret catalog. If you don't know where you stand or are ashamed to say then fine just let it be. But I cannot have a discussion with a blank page.

Certainly you can because this thread isn't about me. It's about the Bush regime's latest assault on the right of consenting adults to entertain themselves in ways the religious right finds offensive. It is pushing a Puritan morality on people who do not share their extreme views. It is about transparently pandering to religious extremists to gain a few votes in November. It's about the myth that Republicans let adults make their own decisions while Democrats try to control people's lives.

Are you interested in discussing the topic of this thread, or are you just looking for ammunition to use for personal attacks?


You chose the attack on me with this strawman comment, so I choose to engage you..

post:

Ashcroft vs. consent - Administration wages war on pornography

WASHINGTON - Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn.
In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains.
Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel.

Bowfinger distorted version of post:

Come on all you Bush supporters. Tell us again how the Republicans let people make their own decisions and don't try to tell people how to run their lives.
In a pig's eye.

bowfinger attacks

Got it. When Republicans make laws controlling what adults read and watch and do, they are letting people run their own lives. When Democrats do it, they are running others' lives, building a nanny state, etc.

Certainly you can because this thread isn't about me. It's about the Bush regime's latest assault on the right of consenting adults to entertain themselves in ways the religious right finds offensive. It is pushing a Puritan morality on people who do not share their extreme views. It is about transparently pandering to religious extremists to gain a few votes in November. It's about the myth that Republicans let adults make their own decisions while Democrats try to control people's lives.

Are you interested in discussing the topic of this thread, or are you just looking for ammunition to use for personal attacks?


(BTW, I have expressed my opinions about the rights of consenting adults many times here. It's not a secret. It's just not relevant to this thread, and I'm not going to feed your diversionary tactics any more than I already have. If you bothered to read Marty's excerpt, you'll note they are talking about soft-core stuff, not just child pornography.)

that was why I asked the question when you came Bush Bashing..

Yep. The government should stay the hell out of adults' personal lives. The government should stop trying to cram the Puritan right's sexual repression down everyone else's throats (so to speak).

I Fail to see from my posts any strawman..

I really don't know what to call yours, except desperation

 

[DaiShan]

Pornography is a legitimate industry and one which has sustained considerable growth over the past few years, its a very lucrative business, I'd think the Republicans would identify with that.

 

[BugsBunny1078]

I believe online pornography is a deteriorating factor for alot of men. I don't however think ANY pictures or movies no matter what is in them should be illegal. No matter what a picture is just a picture an is not inherently bad or good. It is a very short step from making certain pornography illegal to making certain museum photographs and paintings illegal.Even if THAT step is never taken no picture should be illegal.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Like I said - you can nuance the question if you must.

Let me see if I have this nuance thing down from watching kerry and the libbies here...

OK, let me see if I got this straight:
Q. Do you still beat your wife? -- CkG: "No"
Q. Have you stopped molesting little boys? -- CkG: "No"
Q. Do you still sleep with the other bleating sheep? -- CkG: "No"
Q. Does their bleating keep you up at night? -- CkG: "No"
Q. Do you find it difficult to breathe with your head lodged firmly up King George's keister? -- CkG: "No"

(This is why some of us aren't interested in answering your loaded questions, Cad. Because you then attack by taking bits and pieces out of context.)

WRONG - they aren't loaded questions at all and they weren't diversions.

I agree, these are NOT loaded questions. I really do want to know how you breathe with your head lodged in King George's keister.

This thread is about fighting porn and how far the fight is going. Oh, and you're a moron for taking my answers out of context...but I didn't expect anything less from the likes of you.

What?!?! Did I take your answers out of context? How can that be?

Here's a hint for you, you thick-headed dunce -- of course they were taken out of context. That was my whole point. I even explained it in my comment in parentheses. They are loaded questions that cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. It was a little demonstration of the crap you pull so often. Duh. Who helps you get dressed in the morning?

Now answer the question bow. Are you OK with ANY, SOME, or NO porn? If so, what, when, and why?

I have a pretty Libertarian ideology when it comes to people's private lives. With a few exceptions, I do not believe the government has a legitimate role interfering in the activities of consenting adults.

However, this thread is not about my views on pornography nor yours. It is about the Bush administration's actions. I will not answer any of the inevitable follow-up diversionary questions about polygamy or prostitution or whatever. They are off-topic in this thread.

It really isn't that difficult of a question Bow and your motives are showing quite clearly.

Yep. The government should stay the hell out of adults' personal lives. The government should stop trying to cram the Puritan right's sexual repression down everyone else's throats (so to speak).

Ah, exactly - you only want to discuss Bush instead of the topic of fighting pornography. If you'd actually try to have a discussion on the issue instead of trying to bash Bush all the time - we could probably have a decent discussion. But it has become increasingly obvious you are not interesting in conversation - you are only interested in trying to spin everything into something bad about Bush.

Excuse me, Sir Bleat-a-Lot, but the subject of the thread is the Bush administration's "fight" on pornography. It isn't about pornography itself, it's about their tactics and priorities. It's about the use of jack boots and public dollars by the Bush administration to shove the Puritan right's repressive views down our throats. I realize you want to give King George a pass on everything he does, that you never want to hold them accountable for anything, but that's just too bad. Personal accountability isn't just for Democrats any more.

The issue here is the fight against porn - not about Bush and your whining about his "agenda"

Bzzzzt. Sorry, that is incorrect. Please accept our parting gift of one clue. Use it wisely.

Now if you wish to discuss how far is too far in the porn fight then by all means post away - and keep your bush bashing diversions elsewhere.
...OR....you can all ignore the issues and return to your regularly scheduled bush bashing

Thanks for you opinion. I think I'll stick with mine, thanks.

Your choice. If you wish to discuss - I'm game, but if you just want to play games - I'm done.

CkG

Buh bye.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: przero
No it was my mistake. I thought this was a discussion on the merits of a war on porn and if the administrations policies were correct/incorrect. But there can be no discussion here if the original premise is Bush is wrong. Beat him up boys. When you want a DISCUSSION. call me.

Nice dodge. You weren't trying to discuss the merits of George's war on pornography. You wanted to discuss my personal views on porn, indeed you insisted on it. The topic is Bush's war itself.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
[ ... ]

I Fail to see from my posts any strawman.

I'm sure you do. Funny how you failed to include your comments in your quotes above. You probably won't see your straw men when you're only looking at my posts.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

WASHINGTON - Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn.
In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains.
Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.obscenity06apr06,0,3004361.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

So, is there anyone here who wants to defend this action by the Bush administration as an appropriate priority and use of resources? Do you really feel it's appropriate to spend "millions of dollars" to pursue "soft-core cable programs" and "adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains"? Note there is nothing here about child pornography, pornography on broadcast televison, or anything else that has traditionally been considered unacceptable. On the contrary, the Bush administration says "Nothing is off limits".

I'd like to know how you can support this. I'd like to know how one can claim this isn't a graphic example of the myth that Republicans believe in letting adults run their own lives. I'd like to know if you can actually defend and support your President's actions instead of diverting and attacking.

Please advise.

 

[SuperTool]

I think Ashcroft is especially against necrophilia, because he's affraid of losing his wife to a dead guy

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned
[ ... ]

I Fail to see from my posts any strawman.

I'm sure you do. Funny how you failed to include your comments in your quotes above. You probably won't see your straw men when you're only looking at my posts.

There are no comments, only one question...

But if you want to play games, i'll play.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I think Ashcroft is especially against necrophilia, because he's affraid of losing his wife to a dead guy

Yow! That's just mean. Hilarious ... but mean.

 

[sMiLeYz]

If we don't defend free speech for those we hate most, we don't believe in free speech.
-Noam Chomsky

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

WASHINGTON - Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn.
In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains.
Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.obscenity06apr06,0,3004361.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

So, is there anyone here who wants to defend this action by the Bush administration as an appropriate priority and use of resources? Do you really feel it's appropriate to spend "millions of dollars" to pursue "soft-core cable programs" and "adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains"? Note there is nothing here about child pornography, pornography on broadcast televison, or anything else that has traditionally been considered unacceptable. On the contrary, the Bush administration says "Nothing is off limits".

I'd like to know how you can support this. I'd like to know how one can claim this isn't a graphic example of the myth that Republicans believe in letting adults run their own lives. I'd like to know if you can actually defend and support your President's actions instead of diverting and attacking.

Please advise.

If there are laws being broken, then yes it is an appropriate use of resources.

If you don't like the laws THEN CHANGE THEM, you do have that power..

The reason I could support this is that I realize everyone has a different view on
what is moral and what is not..

There is a large segment of this country that believes running their own lives includes
not being constantly subjected to what they don't want to see...And I will respect their
rights..

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
If there are laws being broken, then yes it is an appropriate use of resources.

No laws are being broken here.

The reason I could support this is that I realize everyone has a different view on
what is moral and what is not..

Great, you live your life according to your "moral code" and the rest of us will live ours according to our own. Since "morality" is such a subjective thing, why don't you keep your morality to yourself?

There is a large segment of this country that believes running their own lives includes
not being constantly subjected to what they don't want to see...And I will respect their
rights..

So, let me get this straight, large segments of the country are being forced to order soft core porn in their hotel rooms? They're forced to order Pay Per View movies from their cable provider? No. No they're not.

 

[Ldir]

Didn't the Supreme Court rule obscenity was defined by local community standards? Why is the federal government butting in at all? This is another example of John Asscroft being a fascist.

Each community should make their own prosecution decisions. Republicans should stop trying to run everyone's lives.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

WASHINGTON - Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn.
In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains.
Department officials say they will send "ripples" through an industry that has proliferated on the Internet and grown into an estimated $10 billion-a-year colossus profiting Fortune 500 corporations such as Comcast, which offers hard-core movies on a pay-per-view channel.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.obscenity06apr06,0,3004361.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

So, is there anyone here who wants to defend this action by the Bush administration as an appropriate priority and use of resources? Do you really feel it's appropriate to spend "millions of dollars" to pursue "soft-core cable programs" and "adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains"? Note there is nothing here about child pornography, pornography on broadcast televison, or anything else that has traditionally been considered unacceptable. On the contrary, the Bush administration says "Nothing is off limits".

I'd like to know how you can support this. I'd like to know how one can claim this isn't a graphic example of the myth that Republicans believe in letting adults run their own lives. I'd like to know if you can actually defend and support your President's actions instead of diverting and attacking.

Please advise.

If there are laws being broken, then yes it is an appropriate use of resources.

If you don't like the laws THEN CHANGE THEM, you do have that power..

The reason I could support this is that I realize everyone has a different view on
what is moral and what is not..

There is a large segment of this country that believes running their own lives includes
not being constantly subjected to what they don't want to see...And I will respect their
rights..

Thats a very slipperly slope you want to go down.

I don't like being subjected to seeing 13 year old girls wearing trashy clothes, perhaps that should be banned? Some people don't find that offensive, but I do...and that infringes on my right to not be constantly subjected to something I don't want to see. What if I decide that I find your shirt obscene because you didn't button it all the way up? That should also be banned then, because it infringues on that same right. Or perhaps no public displays of affection for your children or your wife, it makes me jealous and I don't want to see you hugging your daughter. And its infringing on my rights.

Do you see where this is going? I don't like everything I see, but I'm not going to deny other people their right to it because I disagree with it. Scat porn disgusts me to the extreme, but I would be up in arms if you tried to ban it. It just opens the door to stripping away rights that I *do* care about.

 

[Phokus]

In the words of the immortal Bill Hicks: "What business of yours is it what i do, buy, read, see, or take into my body as long as i do not harm another individual on the face of this planet. And for those of you with a moral dilemna, let me answer this for you: 'ITS NONE OF YOUR F*CKING BUSINESS'. Take that to the bank, cash it, and go on a vacation out of my f*cking life"

 

[chess9]

Supertool:

LOL! Too funny....

-Robert

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I think Ashcroft is especially against necrophilia, because he's affraid of losing his wife to a dead guy

Well, he's probably a better dancer.

 

[rbV5]

Ashcroft, a religious man who does not drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, gamble or dance, and has fought unrelenting criticism that he has trod roughshod on civil liberties in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, is taking on the porn industry at a time when many experts say Americans are wary about government intrusion into their lives.

I nominate Mr. Ashcroft for truely being a model for all that is good and right. I say lets get the wars on alcohol, caffine, smoking<already making progress here> (actually the first three could be combined into the "Mother of all wars on drugs" MOAWOD I think I'd call it, gambling, dance<--heinous and of course, most of all "the war on unrelenting critcism" started pronto (this last one is particularly important). I also suggest we appoint a czar of war to keep track of the wars, kinda keep them in a alphabetical war list or something so we can track of them easily. I got a feeling, it going to be a long list. He could be like the domestic war czar because we'd want an International war czar to handle that stuff too. We could probably sell war trinkets or knicknacks to keep the excitement up. This war stuff is cool

 

[Tom]

"They(Republicans) do it the same way everybody does it. With legislation. The majority gets to decide how
people in this society run their lives. "


Fortunately this isn't true. Check out the Constitution for details.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Ldir
Didn't the Supreme Court rule obscenity was defined by local community standards? Why is the federal government butting in at all? This is another example of John Asscroft being a fascist.

Each community should make their own prosecution decisions. Republicans should stop trying to run everyone's lives.

Well?