Ashcroft vs. consent - Administration wages war on pornography

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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.

They do it the same way everybody does it. With legislation. The majority gets to decide how
people in this society run their lives. Not republicans, not democrats, not independents, not your opinions.

I answered your question, forget mine...... I know what drives your anger
and your need to bash Bush in every single post you make, and that is what
I will continue to bring out, until you see also...

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Spencer278
what kind of an idiot thinks they will get ride of porn with 6 people working 40 hours a week?

Well, they're waging war in the courts. It seems that they aren't going after the extreme pornographers, but after the ones that are the biggest distributors of porn.

Yeah I'm sure it will be as succisfull as other great wars on items.

 

[Orsorum]

My answer to this question depends on what the existing obscenity laws are, who has jurisdiction to prosecute them (is it a state or a federal matter? Or both?), how they've been enforced in the past, and ultimately whether Ashcroft's involvement has led to an unreasonable intensification of this area of the FBI's operations.

My personal view is that existing business and obscenity laws should be respected (e.g. purveyors of child pornography should be found and prosecuted), access to porn by minors should be restricted while allowing customers reasonable access to the material (e.g. holding magazines behind counters is fine), and for the love of god someone needs to start going after spammers who send this crap all over the web with rarely a legitimate request for the material.

There is a very fine line between a reasonable restriction of obscene material and censorship; some cases for further discussion would be the 15 year old girl who was recently arrested for sending out nude pictures of herself, this case, and the broader discussion of when children should legally be considered adults.

Until I have more information and a benchmark in the form of historical investigational capacity and perhaps statistics from other countries (England and Canada, anyone?), I cannot in good conscience say anything further.

Cheers!
Nate

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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.

They do it the same way everybody does it. With legislation. The majority gets to decide how
people in this society run their lives. Not republicans, not democrats, not independents, not your opinions.

I answered your question, forget mine...... I know what drives your anger
and your need to bash Bush in every single post you make, and that is what
I will continue to bring out, until you see also...

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.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[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.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: przero
So, you are ok with any kind of porn?

Yes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Answer the question Bow. This thread is about porn and fighting it. So are you ok with any kind of porn? Or just the really "bad" stuff? Or should it all be allowed?

Your choice I'll even let you "nuance" your answer if you can actually answer it with a yes or no.

CkG

More diversions from the spinmeister. I will address issues at hand. As we've already established, however, I feel no obligation to answer your loaded questions.

Do you still beat your wife? Have you stopped molesting little boys? Do you still sleep with the other bleating sheep? Does their bleating keep you up at night? Do you find it difficult to breathe with your head lodged firmly up King George's keister?

Yes or No, Cad? I'll answer your questions if you answer mine. I'll even let you "nuance" your answers if you can actually answer each with a Yes or No.



All questions are NOT created equal.

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...
"Do you still beat your wife?" - No, I never started so your inference that I had is off base.
"Have you stopped molesting little boys?" - No, I never started so your inference that I had is off base.
"Do you still sleep with the other bleating sheep?" - No, I never started so your inference that I had is off base.
"Does their bleating keep you up at night?" - No, I don't sleep with sheep as I said in the previous question.
"Do you find it difficult to breathe with your head lodged firmly up King George's keister?" - No, my head has never been up King George's keister so your inference that it once was is off base.

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

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

I personally am "OK" with SOME porn. I don't think a lot of the hard-core weird stuff should be available but the law is the law and if the law sets limits on porn then so be it. I also don't think it should be available to kids(ie 18 to buy/rent porno). I don't actively support porn but then again I'm not actively working to ban it all either. Those who peddle smut and step over the lines defined by the law need to be caught and punished though.

CkG

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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.

They do it the same way everybody does it. With legislation. The majority gets to decide how
people in this society run their lives. Not republicans, not democrats, not independents, not your opinions.

I answered your question, forget mine...... I know what drives your anger
and your need to bash Bush in every single post you make, and that is what
I will continue to bring out, until you see also...

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.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, you are talking to me,, now tell me what is a strawman?

 

[Orsorum]

I never thought it possible that I'd again get sick of the partisan rhetoric that pervades this board, but indeed it just happened. Get the fvck over yourselves and learn how to have a coherent conversation. :|

 

[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?


(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.)

 

[PingSpike]

Beautiful. Do they actually expect to erradicate porn? At best, with extremely aggressive tactics they might be able to drive it out of the United States...taking a multi-billion dollar industry with it that increases demand for services like cable TV, broadband internet and other things used for its distribution and production. And what then? What do we outlaw from there? Sex outside of marriage? Revealing clothing? Women's sexuality?

No one wants kiddie porn or any of that killing crap, but frankly...if there's a market for the rest and consenting adults want to make and market it, I say let them.

 

[przero]

So you're okay with soft porn just not kiddie porn? And in no way will I make this personal, other than to find out your views. You may have a glorious history here, but I don't know it. I'm trying to figure if you think anything goes, somethings go and others do not, or anything W does is stupid.
If you just want to bash Bush fine. But I got no dog in that fight. But if you want to discuss a war on pornography, then the discussion should begin with your position on the subject. I ain't in to calling people names, that's why my hometown is in my profile. You want an intelligent discussion then let's go, wanna name call with those others here, then ya'll have at it.

 

[przero]

PingSpike - That's the sad part, there's a market for all of it, no matter how vile and disgusting. But there freedoms end before I open my e-mail. And something has to be done about that. Now PPV, HBO, etc. how is anyone gonna stop that with laws.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
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.

They do it the same way everybody does it. With legislation. The majority gets to decide how
people in this society run their lives. Not republicans, not democrats, not independents, not your opinions.

I answered your question, forget mine...... I know what drives your anger
and your need to bash Bush in every single post you make, and that is what
I will continue to bring out, until you see also...

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.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Oh, you are talking to me,, now tell me what is a strawman?

Strawman

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: przero
PingSpike - That's the sad part, there's a market for all of it, no matter how vile and disgusting. But there freedoms end before I open my e-mail. And something has to be done about that. Now PPV, HBO, etc. how is anyone gonna stop that with laws.

Don't open porn email? is that really that hard?

Or maybe you are think the penis enlargement and vigra stuff is porn?

 

[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.)

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).

 

[przero]

No I'm talking about the one's that have a legitimate line in the subject line. I get mail (business) from name I do not recognize with the likes of "Call me" or "Hey" in the subject line. Now I have to check the sender of each e-mail before I open it. Now why should I have to do this . So someone can send me unsolicited porn? I don't think so. At least mark it as porn!

 

[Triumph]

This is the final straw. I am NOT voting for Bush. Take away my civil liberties, take my soldiers to war, fine. But you CANNOT take away my porn!

 

[przero]

And the pornographer's should stop cramming there filth down my e-mail! Any suggestions?

 

[Orsorum]

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

I would wager that's not the pornographers about which you're worried, but spammers. I fully support lethal force to be used in their case.

 

[przero]

Exactly. At least the viagra/penis enlargement people tell you in the subject line.

 

[DealMonkey]

Oh my mistake, was this thread about Bowfinger's personal preference on porn? Oh, no it wasn't? You say it was about Ashcroft? A Bush administration official? Aaaaaah, I see now. The Bush fan boys can't handle any more criticism? 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?

You know it's funny, but I really thought the issue was Ashcroft and how during an era when terrorism is our biggest challenge, he's got a room full of idiots trying to figure out ways to stop "... 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..." WTF? I would have given him a pass if he was busy tracking down child pornographers. But he's not. Instead he's waging his own personal Christian culture war in America. Doesn't he have any more classical statues to cover with a sheet so we don't burn our eyes out of their sockets seeing their rock boobies?

Do you feel more free than you did 4 years ago?

I sure don't.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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. 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.

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.

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

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

CkG

 

[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.

 

[Zephyr106]

MORALITY WAR '04. The fronts are TV "indecency", unGodly pornography, and hmmm what next. It kind of reminds me of that period in time when alcoholic beverages were banned in the United States.

Zephyr