John Ashcroft = Bigger S.O.B. than you could possibly imagine

[Phokus]

<< Quit trying to scare everybody. The only thing specifically mentioned is CHILD PORNOGRAPHY. Now if that is what you are in to then I can see why you would be upset.
Unless Ashcroft has figured out a way to circumvent the Supreme Court, and THEIR prior rulings on pornography, your list of what MIGHT be banned is something pulled out of someone?s A$$ that won?t happen.
As for the medical marijuana debate this still is working its way through the courts. Now I am all for the legalization of marijuana (why should the terminally ill get to have all of the fun), but passing voter referendums (that are contrary to federal law) without squaring things with the Feds first, is asking for trouble. Of course there is going to be a conflict. >>



Wow, jimbo, the inbred redneck bimbo strikes again! You obviously missed this post from me:



<< << If you watched the frontline episode, you will surely know it's NOT ONLY about the children, fool.
It's about 'hardcore' porn. As we speak, Seymore Butts is being sued for one of his videos
because apparently, it has a girl/girl 'fisting' (i put this in quotes because the hand isn't in a 'fist'
shape) scene in it. It's pretty interesting because having a porno where a person inserts four
fingers is totally legal, but once the thumb goes into play, it falls under some bullsh1t 'obscenity'
law. >> >>



So again, the 'justice' system IS prosecuting this stuff from the list.

 

[Freejack2]

With a multi-trillion dollar federal deficit this country needed a tax cut like a hole in the head. The money could have been better used to stimulate the economy or pay down some of the deficit.
As for medical marijuana and assisted suicide these were things passed by the state or local governments. It is their job to deal with this, not Ashcroft's.
Ashcroft is spending his time following his religious beliefs instead of doing things that need to be done like securing this country against terrorism and putting a stopper on government corruption.

And as for web pornography this was argued ages ago, set up the .sex domain, require all pornography to go there and then pass a law so that isps can't block .sex domains. (e.g. They should only be blocked at the corporate/home level)

 

[swayinOtis]

<< So...essentially it was the porn industry OVERREACTING. That's just what they're afraid of, kinda like you. They think that just because Ashcroft is religious that he's going to go nuts censuring stuff. >>



more like "go nuts prosecuting."



<< You're wrong on this one, buddy. And so are they. If they censure anyting worse than bestiality and rape and incest, I will be very, VERY surprised.

--Sarah >>



i want to agree with you here but i don't know. this administration scares me. that the thing. that fear that once they start they will not stop. i think people's fears of ashcroft are legitimate. this is a guy who had the semi-nude "Spirit of Justice" statue covered up with drapes. lol i bet the europeans got a kick out of that.

 

[BDawg]

<< ok, call me naive, what is bukake? >>



Bukkake is popular in Japan. It involves many men (100+) "seeding" a woman's face.

 

[swayinOtis]

the irony is we just put down a regime in afghanistan that wanted to impose its fanatically religious beliefs on the people there. now it looks like we might be facing the same thing. ashcroft just covered up a semi-nude statue at the Justice department. yeah, that's protecting america.

 

[SagaLore]

<< Ashcroft only upheld Roe vs. Wade because of potential political backlash. He's already laid the groundwork to have that overturned in the future by having a fetus classified as a 'child' for medical benefits. He knows he's got a shot with this because what politician is going to risk being labeled as a pot-smoking porn monger in opposition to him? Politicians do what they think is best for the country, but this should be based on logic and facts, not personal moral beleifs. Law should not dictate moral right and wrong and moral right and wrong should not dictate law. Hitler is a pretty damn good example that comes to mind as to why. >>



Logic is subjective, facts are misleading. Personal moral beliefs change the perspective of logic and facts, and sometimes vice versa.

And you probably already know this, so in other words, you're saying "this should be based on logic and facts as presented by atheists"

If this really was based on logic and facts, then most hardcore porn would already be banned. Logically, porn does nothing to benefit society, primarily is a waste of time, and does a good job of degrading people. Factually, porn has a habit of becoming psychologically addicting (otherwise why do people try so hard defending it unless they're afraid of losing it), it can potentially traumatize children who stumble upon it, etc.

What? You say that isn't factual? Logically doesn't make sense? You would say so if your own moral bias was affecting your perception of the logic and facts.

 

[rufruf44]

As long as he enforced laws that are currently implemented, I'll support the Attorney General. But if he start blindly hacking left and right, I'm sure he won't last very long there.

 

[SagaLore]

<< Most Americans also have an IQ of 100 and below. >>



Who cares. This is a democracy... everyone gets a vote... there's nothing in the constitution that states only those with the highest intelligence matter.

 

[Jimbo]

First of all Phokus, you don't even LIVE in the U.S. (or so your profile says) so why do you give a rats a$$ what laws we pass here.
Are you worried the big bad U.S. will shut down all your favorate kiddie porn sites in Canada? Please enlighten me on how we would go about doing that. Now that I have exposed one of your lies I'll go for some more.
In the end MOST of us inbred redneck bimbos (as you like to call anyone that disagrees with you) are against assisted suicide, the legalization of drugs, and are not so hot on the idea of pornography. If that was NOT the case we would have different laws because we would elect congressmen that support those views. Get it moron? If you could get over your persistant, yet incorrect belief, that everyone south of the Canadian border is incapable of making their own laws then you might come closer to making a worthwile post.
In the end you should have been a B--w J-b.

 

[Michael]

I'm always amused by the bashing of "religious" beliefs that is done with the same fervor and emotion that the so-called "evil religious" person. You can debate if obscenity laws are needed at all, but they do exist right now and Ashcroft does have a duty to enforce the laws. Everyone has a moral filter they use when making judgments. I'm comfortable with the checks and balances within US government and society that any deviation from current practice will be well within the law.

Bush was elected and Ashcroft was confirmed. That's the way the system works.

Michael

ps - I read the article off the link. It sounded like scare-mongering against Ashcroft. There has been no action taken and hard core porn is very hard to defend.

 

[Arschloch]

<< First of all Phokus, you don't even LIVE in the U.S. (or so your profile says) so why do you give a rats a$$ what laws we pass here.
Are you worried the big bad U.S. will shut down all your favorate kiddie porn sites in Canada? Please enlighten me on how we would go about doing that. Now that I have exposed one of your lies I'll go for some more.
In the end MOST of us inbred redneck bimbos (as you like to call anyone that disagrees with you) are against assisted suicide, the legalization of drugs, and are not so hot on the idea of pornography. If that was NOT the case we would have different laws because we would elect congressmen that support those views. Get it moron? If you could get over your persistant, yet incorrect belief, that everyone south of the Canadian border is capable of making their own laws then you might come closer to making a worthwile post.
In the end you should have been a B--w J-b. >>


Uncalled for.

I don't necessarily agree with everything Phokus has said, but let's try keeping the middle-school-insults-that-you-think-are-good-because-they're-vulgar-to-a-minimum, okay?

You know, it is possible to disagree with someone without starting a flame war and firing off lame insults.

 

[AaronP]

With a multi-trillion dollar federal deficit this country needed a tax cut like a hole in the head

OMFG! OUR DEFICIT WENT UP BY AT LEAST A FACTOR OF 20! How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't even know what you're talkin about?

And BTW, tax cuts actually INCREAES government REVENUE!

 

[AaronP]

ashcroft just covered up a semi-nude statue at the Justice department. yeah, that's protecting america

I just think he didn't want a giant dick behind his head in every photo and video of him speaking there. i cant blame him.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

<<

<< Ashcroft is one of those fundamentalist assholes that thinks everything that HE deems a sin should be criminal as well. And it's damn scary he's in a postition to make that happen.

TheBlondOne, don't be fooled, Ashcroft is a religious zealot. He'd outlaw dancing if he could. >>



And that makes you an anti-religious zealot. Who cares what religion he is - a politician should do their job based on their moral belief. If they don't, then it's only to get themselves re-elected each year - a popularity contest. Perhaps you're just not used to seeing a politician with an actual backbone.

If you don't like his agenda then you vote officials into office that will push *you're* agenda. It's as simple as that. That way, whatever you deem as *not a sin*, will not be criminal. >>



Actually, I'm a Christian with some common sense. And there is a difference between doing your job and adhering to your moral beliefs and using your job to force your moral beliefs on others. It is not our government's job, responsibity, or right to legislate morals to the country. That's the very reason we have a separation of church and state. They are supposed to stick to logic, rationale, and facts. When emotion, morals, and religious beliefs start controlling things, well, we all got a pretty good look at what happens then with Nazi Germany, the Taliban, etc. didn't we?

 

[SagaLore]

<<

<< Tomlinator said:

Most Americans are FOR his activities involving Porn and Medical Canabus....I am as well. >>



I think what you meant to saw was, "Most Fascist Christian Right Wingers are FOR his activities involving Porn and Medical Canabus [sic]...I am a fascist christian as well." >>



Nah, I think what he meant to saw was, "Phukus is a Communist HeteroPhobic As$hole that is too selfish to realize that just because he prefers whacking off to images of silicon augmentation than interacting with the real human race that doesn't mean society benefits from it...I'm glad I'm not as pathetic as him."

 

[Arschloch]

<< With a multi-trillion dollar federal deficit this country needed a tax cut like a hole in the head

OMFG! OUR DEFICIT WENT UP BY AT LEAST A FACTOR OF 20! How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't even know what you're talkin about?

And BTW, tax cuts actually INCREAES government REVENUE! >>


That isn't necessarily true. If you're familiar with Economics, the Laffer curve shows that cutting taxes increases government revenue up to a point. So, if you're on the left side of the Laffer curve and you cut taxes, then you're actually going to decrease government revenue.

Furthermore, if, while taxes are cut, the economy does not emerge from the recession, tax revenue will not increase. Tax revenue will increase only if the economy turns around and people have greater incomes.

So was your comment a major oversimplification of something you already knew, or are you just pretending to know economics?

 

[Jimbo]

I don't know arschloch after reading

<< Wow, jimbo, the inbred redneck bimbo strikes again! >>

from Phokus I think I have the right to respond in kind.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

<< ashcroft just covered up a semi-nude statue at the Justice department. yeah, that's protecting america

I just think he didn't want a giant dick behind his head in every photo and video of him speaking there. i cant blame him. >>



The statue in question was female.

 

Funny, porno is one of the main reasons the internet is the way it is now.

 

[Phokus]

<< First of all Phokus, you don't even LIVE in the U.S. (or so your profile says) so why do you give a rats a$$ what laws we pass here.
Are you worried the big bad U.S. will shut down all your favorate kiddie porn sites in Canada? Please enlighten me on how we would go about doing that. Now that I have exposed one of your lies I'll go for some more.
In the end MOST of us inbred redneck bimbos (as you like to call anyone that disagrees with you) are against assisted suicide, the legalization of drugs, and are not so hot on the idea of pornography. If that was NOT the case we would have different laws because we would elect congressmen that support those views. Get it moron? If you could get over your persistant, yet incorrect belief, that everyone south of the Canadian border is incapable of making their own laws then you might come closer to making a worthwile post.
In the end you should have been a B--w J-b. >>



Hehe, the funny thing about this post is that i'm American. The profile clearly shows that i'm from the 'states (dunno why it says i'm from the alberta province though, but i changed it to 'massachusetts'). Anyway, half your post has already been nullified!

Ok so you're basically saying that most americans are against the 1st amendment, are against helping aids and cancer patients with getting their appetites back so they can get back to a healthier weight, and against helping cancer patients dying with dignity instead of living through immense suffering. OK I'LL BUY THAT!

 

[Arschloch]

<< I don't know arschloch after reading

<< Wow, jimbo, the inbred redneck bimbo strikes again! >>

from Phokus I think I have the right to respond in kind. >>


Okay, fair enough. I somehow missed that part of what he said. So he started the flame war.

That said, your comment went a little further than his did.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

SagaLore, quit singling me out and go thump 'your' bible along with Aschroft. It's Christians like you that *almost* make me ashamed to admit than I am one too. God chose not to force His will on people for a reason, or do you and Ashcroft think that was mistake? Good thing we have folks like you to make up for God's mistakes.

 

[SagaLore]

<<

<<

<< Ashcroft is one of those fundamentalist assholes that thinks everything that HE deems a sin should be criminal as well. And it's damn scary he's in a postition to make that happen.

TheBlondOne, don't be fooled, Ashcroft is a religious zealot. He'd outlaw dancing if he could. >>



And that makes you an anti-religious zealot. Who cares what religion he is - a politician should do their job based on their moral belief. If they don't, then it's only to get themselves re-elected each year - a popularity contest. Perhaps you're just not used to seeing a politician with an actual backbone.

If you don't like his agenda then you vote officials into office that will push *you're* agenda. It's as simple as that. That way, whatever you deem as *not a sin*, will not be criminal. >>



Actually, I'm a Christian with some common sense. And there is a difference between doing your job and adhering to your moral beliefs and using your job to force your moral beliefs on others. It is not our government's job, responsibity, or right to legislate morals to the country. That's the very reason we have a separation of church and state. They are supposed to stick to logic, rationale, and facts. When emotion, morals, and religious beliefs start controlling things, well, we all got a pretty good look at what happens then with Nazi Germany, the Taliban, etc. didn't we? >>



Being a government worker does not mean hanging up your beliefs at the door.

Everything Ashcroft is doing can be done with logic, rationale, and facts - but, it's his moral beliefs that drives him. There is nothing in the constitution that says you can't be motivated by your convictions. That constitution of ours is full of checks and balances that will keep Ashcroft from *forcing* anything.

It will take an entire system for Ashcroft to accomplish anything - he has no magic button - he simply is making it an issue instead of ignoring it. If any laws get passed, it's not because Ashcroft has divine insanity that magically forces people to agree with him.

 

[BoberFett]

It's quite simple really.

Republicans suck.

Democrats suck.

Start electing 3rd parties. If you vote for the same old thing time and time again, expect the same old behavior.

 

[vi edit]

<< In the end MOST of us inbred redneck bimbos (as you like to call anyone that disagrees with you) are against assisted suicide, the legalization of drugs, and are not so hot on the idea of pornography. If that was NOT the case we would have different laws because we would elect congressmen that support those views >>



Somebody correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that Oregon had a law on the books that allowed physician assisted suicide of some form or another if certain stipulations were followed. Ashcroft didn't agree with it, and using the powers appointed to him outlawed the practice.

There was no vote involved. That's not democratic, that's totalitarian.

EDIT: link