RE: Ricky wants to ban porn.......

RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BitaTruble -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/15/2012 8:21:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/rick-santorum-wants-ban-hardcore-pornography-222833811.html Rut-row..... Well, I can't say the man is not consistent and he certainly appears to have the courage of his convictions which is more than I can say for any of the rest of them. Still, there is something about him that makes my teeth itch and is just a little bit creepy. I can't put my finger on what it is about him that bothers me ... maybe I have an aversion to sweater vests. I was never sufficiently exposed to them as a child. My family was more into cowboy hats and shit kickers or marine uniforms.. we didn't 'do' sweater vests so it's an alien concept and a little too Ozzie & Harriet for my taste. I have never seen a man so determined to turn off as many different demographics as possible. I wonder if he realizes that a primary win and nod from the GOP does not mean he's president. He still has to fight the general.. On top of that, Santorum seems just a wee bit little slow to me. Maybe he thinks he's already in the General and further, thinks he's winning. ::chuckles:: I do love the season. I do, I do. [:D]

DaddySatyr -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/15/2012 8:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee So. . . you are all saying that porn is a good thing? I, for one, am not saying it's a good thing but, I also won't say it's an inherently bad thing. I will say that I believe it's protected by the 1st amendment and that's good enough for me. Peace and comfort, Michael

tweakabelle -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/15/2012 8:31:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 If it were up to this guy, BDSM would be outlawed, and there are people on this website that support this idiot. YES! YES! This message cannot be repeated often enough. Do the fools who defend this creep, or the 1100 odd anti-women bills the GOP is try to legislate think for a moment that BDSM people are not on the hit list of the moral police? Do they think for a minute that Frothy Mix et al aren't going to come after you because you supported him? Are they deluded enough to think that this support will make them immune from the hate? The Religious Right will be targeting any one who falls outside their narrow medieval view of what constitutes 'proper' sexual conduct (ie unsafe Male-female intercourse - they don't like the word 'sex' - only in marriage bed) You can stake your sex life that BDSM and kink will be high on their hit list. Vote for this creep and you will be doing just that - staking your sex life on it. That makes every single one of us their enemy, whether we like it or not. Those of us into compulsory chastity might possibly be the sole exception.

JanahX -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/15/2012 8:40:29 PM)
lol... no shit. quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: JanahX Well sure he does -----> sex is for reproduction purposes ONLY. DUH ... Unfortunately, that dumb fuck has already reproduced.

DarkSteven -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/15/2012 9:02:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee So. . . you are all saying that porn is a good thing? It is for me. That said, there's a huge difference between saying that something is bad and outlawing it. I don't smoke, drink liquor, etc., because I think they're bad, but don't agree with outlawing them.

xssve -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/15/2012 9:23:41 PM)
Shit, he's probably getting kickbacks from the porn industry, the price of porn would have to go up, you know damn well you're never gonna get rid of it, anymore than you can get rid of drugs and alcohol, and those are very lucrative businesses too.

SternSkipper -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/15/2012 9:36:08 PM)
Fuck it... I haven't been able to look at porn since the match people went extinct... [image]http://www.emailjokez.com/images/37028image001_38320_37028_1.gif[/image]

Owner59 -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/15/2012 9:51:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JanahX Well sure he does -----> sex is for reproduction purposes ONLY. DUH ... Ya`ll are a bunch of filthy dirty fornicators........[;)] <------Notice location.

xssve -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/15/2012 10:15:08 PM)
Well to be fair, there is an epidemic of porn addiction - among Christians. Turns out the more you ain't supposed to do something, the harder it is not to do it, go figure. That and being surrounded by all these sexless disciplinarian mother types, half these guys probably gonna end up in some really twisted shit. Really not much of a mystery why child molestation correlates with strict religious upbringing - ten minutes with one of those tools and I'm wishing they'd crucify me and put out of my misery - live with that day in and day out, you got to go crazy. Oh well, next generations of kinky fuckers is in the pipeline.

Winterapple -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/16/2012 1:30:40 AM)
FR The porn industry is thriving. It's one business that hasn't been outsourced. Closing the porn business down would put a lot of hardworking Americans out of work. Repressed and bad for business, ladies and gentlemen, Rick Santorum! He really does seem to be pulling everything out of the religious right's panty drawer. Next up, outlawing divorce.

xssve -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/16/2012 1:37:45 AM)
Yeah, well, if there's anything those conservative types can't stand, it's somebody makin' money or anything else they ain't got their fingers into.

MrBukani -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/16/2012 2:47:57 AM)
Thats great news, you would all come to amsterdam for whores, dope and illegal porn! I see dollars.[:D] That would be a good boost for our economy, thanks Ricky.

vincentML -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/16/2012 5:21:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee So. . . you are all saying that porn is a good thing? I, for one, am not saying it's a good thing but, I also won't say it's an inherently bad thing. I will say that I believe it's protected by the 1st amendment and that's good enough for me. Peace and comfort, Michael You have too much faith in SCOTUS, Michael. They have already ruled in favor of 'community standards.' It is but a short step to an outright ban. It will only take the next Republican president to nominate a Conservative Justice to the Court. Furthermore, pressure can easily be brought upon internet providers to block porn. Just because we have had a liberty does not mean we will always have it. The price of liberty is vigilance, etc.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/16/2012 5:46:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML You have too much faith in SCOTUS, Michael. They have already ruled in favor of 'community standards.' It is but a short step to an outright ban. It will only take the next Republican president to nominate a Conservative Justice to the Court. Furthermore, pressure can easily be brought upon internet providers to block porn. Just because we have had a liberty does not mean we will always have it. The price of liberty is vigilance, etc. I agree with the vigilance. Trust me. I just don't see a Republican president, a Republican house, and a Republican senate happening in the right combination to allow (here I go, again) "President" Santorum to sit an ultra-conservative on the bench. Be that as it may, "community standards" is a tricky way for people to bring a case like this to the Supremes. Why? Simple, really. "Porn", as it exists today is a national thing (I'm speaking only about our laws and our jurisdiction. I know it's global). Hustler isn't only sold in large cities (although, I'm sure some store owners - of their own volition - choose not to carry pornography because of the communities they serve). It's nation-wide. It's in almost every convenience store and newsstand and luncheonette. In order to invoke "community standards" two things would have to happen: 1) the person(s) bringing suit would have to try to claim spokesmanship for the entire country or, more probably 2) The suit would be brought by "Citizens for a Clean Podunk County" See? The issue is: *What* community are we talking about? If the people in Podunk county want to ban porn from being sold in their jurisdiction, I'm all for it. However, we're talking about a case, making it all the way to the Supremes which tells me we're talking about the "community" being the entire US. I don't think the most dyed-in-the-wool religious nutjob could make a case that the "community standards" of the entire country reject pornography. Maybe I'm over-thinking it but my faith isn't in the Supremes, per se but in the "community" that this would affect. In fact, there are judges on the court that refuse to strike down things with which they agree (anti-abortion, for example) because they don't have a constitutional leg to stand on. I know that if I were a judge, I couldn't strike down something just because it was something with which I didn't agree and I'm willing to assume that when it comes to constitutional law and a personal conviction to uphold it, the Supremes are far superior to me. Peace and comfort, Michael

vincentML -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/16/2012 6:03:53 AM)
quote: Be that as it may, "community standards" is a tricky way for people to bring a case like this to the Supremes. Why? Simple, really. "Porn", as it exists today is a national thing (I'm speaking only about our laws and our jurisdiction. I know it's global). Hustler isn't only sold in large cities (although, I'm sure some store owners - of their own volition - choose not to carry pornography because of the communities they serve). It's nation-wide. It's in almost every convenience store and newsstand and luncheonette. In order to invoke "community standards" two things would have to happen: The question before the court was whether the sale and distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Speech. The Court ruled that it was not. It indicated that "obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment", specially that of hardcore pornography, thereby reaffirming part of Roth.[1][2] However, the Court acknowledged "the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression," and said that "State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited."[3] The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met in order for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation: 1.whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; 2.whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[4] specifically defined by applicable state law; and 3."whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."[5]

DaddySatyr -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/16/2012 6:18:27 AM)
I think that is my point. I have no problem with ... Connecticutt putting a question on the ballot banning porn within state lines. If the people vote to pass it, that's fine with me. If that's what the people of the state want, have at it. But, I still think that in order for porn to be banned, nation-wide, the "community" would have to be defined as "The United States". I would think any lawyer worth their salt would argue that a decision affecting the entire country would have to "hear argument" from the entire country, when assessing "community standards". I know what the court has said before. That was the 70s? The court has changed a bit, since then and if we look at it objectively, I think it's actually a tick more liberal than conservative now than it was then. I think pornography is well ensconced in our country ... hell, in our society. I don't see it going anywhere, any time soon. Do I see people still trying to eradicate it? Of course. I also see people suing the president for not stopping the alpha rays from planet Zetar controlling their brain paterns. Legal arguments aside, I don't see this "threat" from Sen. Santorum as being a viable one. I think he just might be a true believer and that makes his candidacy even scarier. Peace and comfort, Michael

erieangel -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/16/2012 10:11:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani Thats great news, you would all come to amsterdam for whores, dope and illegal porn! I see dollars.[:D] That would be a good boost for our economy, thanks Ricky. Unfortunately, if Ricky were in the WH, nobody would have enough money to travel anywhere...except the already super rich, that is. In the past 5-6 years, my income has increased has, at first substantially over what it had been, then slowly with small raises. But that isn't going to last forever and I predict that that if we don't succeed in getting rid of the Republicans both at the state and federal levels, jobs like mine would be virtually nonexistent and a huge new crop of homeless people will flood our streets.

Lucylastic -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/16/2012 12:00:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: If Romney gets the nod, I'll at least take a look at his positions... With regard to the OP /// Missionary only Pat Robertson just came out with the startling revalation that Oral sex is ok but only if you are married.... Santorums statements havent been a surprise, the surprise is that he is second up for nomination...even first in some places. That says an awful lot about people who are wanting religion interfere in people lives except when it concerns them. Land of the free?? hardly

thishereboi -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/16/2012 12:25:42 PM)
yea, I wouldn't put any money against that one either.

daddyneedsluv -> RE: Ricky wants to ban porn....... (3/16/2012 12:31:26 PM)
I fear everyone on the religious right. There is no good to come from there. For anyone. If you look at everything they stand for, you will see them doing the opposite. They have always found of a way of going to the extreme to show that the majority of them don't do what the majority of them do. It is in their nature to make themselves look holier than thou in everything they do. Even after they get caught for doing what they fought against. They just turn it into an "Addiction" and tell us they are looking to "Jesus" to absolve their sins, because they're allowed to Sin and go against what they stand for. It is only those of us that don't lie, cheat, steal, and live in hypocrisy that are not allowed to live freely.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875