GOP to Target Hardcore Porn

[lovecraft68]

A change in the Republican Party Platform to target illegal adult pornography...

If it is already illegal, this is a non-news item.

This is the start and that's how they hope to worm in. It starts with illegal porn then creeps into more.

Go back a few months to paypal's censorship attempt. They were targeting Rape, incest, bestiality. Now those three subjects are all pretty distasteful to the average person, so they figured they would not get much opposition.

They ended up having their asses handed to them because people knew this was just the start. They would have gone further from there.

We have the freedom to stroke to whatever the hell we want to, pure and simple.

 

[PennLady]

Found this on Salon: What Women's Issues?

Yes, I know Salon leans liberal and all that (so do I), and some of their stuff is just, well, stuff, but the thing here is not necessarily the article or the woman who wrote it but this nifty little quote by one of the women -- a Republican woman -- the author was speaking to.

As for the “war on women,” Carter retorts, “I would say the current economic standing of the United States is a war on women. I would think that the current healthcare bill that may or may not be repealed — I don’t want to call it ‘Obamacare’ but I can’t remember the name of it — is potentially a serious war on women, allowing women to make their own healthcare choices.”

(Emphasis mine)

I really hope she got a little mixed up speaking off the cuff.

 

[3113]

A change in the Republican Party Platform to target illegal adult pornography...

If it is already illegal, this is a non-news item.

One would think so, but his point seems to be that no one is upholding these laws--that the porn is illegal and no one is being punished for pushing it like they should be.

But if you re-read the article it says that what he deems as illegal porn really isn't illegal (adult stuff as compared to child, for example). He "erroneously" says, for example, that it's illegal for porn to be on the internet and no one's doing anything about it, but that's actually legal. So what he really wants is probably to make it all illegal.

And just what is hardcore porn? Does this let the softcore porn off the hook?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Many years ago, there was a distinction between hardcore and softcore porn. The latter were things like Playboy and Esquire Magazines, which were illegal for people under 18 (or 21) and hardcore was illegal for anybody. In the Sixties, that changed and is pretty much what we have now. I wonder if this means they want to outlaw porn that is already illegal.

Little boys (and maybe little girls) start to masturbate when they are very young and, after ten or 12 years, they are too young to get married anyhow. Of course, they never have sex until their 18th birthdays.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Found this on Salon: What Women's Issues?

Yes, I know Salon leans liberal and all that (so do I), and some of their stuff is just, well, stuff, but the thing here is not necessarily the article or the woman who wrote it but this nifty little quote by one of the women -- a Republican woman -- the author was speaking to.



(Emphasis mine)

I really hope she got a little mixed up speaking off the cuff.

It may be a slip of the tongue or it may be a reference to Obamacare and Medicare. The former basically rips off a large part of the funding of the latter, which may mean women, who tend to outlive men and have many health problems during old age, may have to pay a larger part of their health costs, besides paying into Medicare all their working lives and paying for Medicare from their Social Security benefits.

 

[JackLuis]

Tampa's Only Gay-Owned Bathhouse Offers GOPers Free Admission

Some people will do anything, for money, or during a convention.

 

[RjThoughts]

Found this on Salon: What Women's Issues?

Yes, I know Salon leans liberal and all that (so do I), and some of their stuff is just, well, stuff, but the thing here is not necessarily the article or the woman who wrote it but this nifty little quote by one of the women -- a Republican woman -- the author was speaking to.



(Emphasis mine)

I really hope she got a little mixed up speaking off the cuff.

I certainly hope that she's NOT as dumb as she appears. OMG, she needs to take a moment and step away from the Kool Aid.

 

[gentledemands]

My guess is within 30 minutes of making the announcements that something like this was going to happen, all the pictures of politicians in compromising positions would come out.

 

[RjThoughts]

It may be a slip of the tongue or it may be a reference to Obamacare and Medicare. The former basically rips off a large part of the funding of the latter, which may mean women, who tend to outlive men and have many health problems during old age, may have to pay a larger part of their health costs, besides paying into Medicare all their working lives and paying for Medicare from their Social Security benefits.

And the Ryan plan for Medicare is to give vouchers, which, if you have a parent in long-term nursing assisted housing, know will never work. The pittance of moenyt bandied around, $7500/year at the most, won't cover three months.

The money being taken out of Medicare is just waste, double billings and overage.

 

[PennLady]

It may be a slip of the tongue or it may be a reference to Obamacare and Medicare. The former basically rips off a large part of the funding of the latter, which may mean women, who tend to outlive men and have many health problems during old age, may have to pay a larger part of their health costs, besides paying into Medicare all their working lives and paying for Medicare from their Social Security benefits.

But don't you see anything alarming in the statement that Obamacare is "potentially a serious war on women, allowing women to make their own healthcare choices." Really? Allowing women to make their own healthcare choices is a problem? That was what got me.

 

[RjThoughts]

But don't you see anything alarming in the statement that Obamacare is "potentially a serious war on women, allowing women to make their own healthcare choices." Really? Allowing women to make their own healthcare choices is a problem? That was what got me.

Heaven forbid that a woman's intelligent enough to make her OWN healthcare choices. What's next, they'll wear slacks? Show some calf?

 

[Handley_Page]

Let me get this straight, please

Do I take it that the only thing in the USA (and possibly the world) to worry about is whether Porn is affecting our children ? And this subject is so all-fired important to put aside justice and so on ?

I take it that the Banking Crisis (for example) is well past its sell-by date then, and it's all over ?

 

[TxRad]

Let me get this straight, please

Do I take it that the only thing in the USA (and possibly the world) to worry about is whether Porn is affecting our children ? And this subject is so all-fired important to put aside justice and so on ?

I take it that the Banking Crisis (for example) is well past its sell-by date then, and it's all over ?

Brains and priorities should never go in any sentence dealing with politicos.

 

[RjThoughts]

Brains and priorities should never go in any sentence dealing with politicos.

It's an obfuscation, misdirecting the public from their Congressmen that halted any and all attempts to jump start the economy by using the Fillibuster threat!

 

[3113]

Do I take it that the only thing in the USA (and possibly the world) to worry about is whether Porn is affecting our children ? And this subject is so all-fired important to put aside justice and so on ?

It's a scourge. Scourges do that.

The question, of course, is: is this guy simply trying to say (badly) that he wants porn laws which make it illegal to pedal such to children enforced (I suspect that's what this is all about, though using the words "illegal adult porn" don't make it at all clear), or does he want to make pedaling hardcore porn illegal even to adults? If all he wants is to make sure kids can't see such things on the internet...well, good luck, but if this is the party of less government, then why is it up to the government rather than the parents to make sure the porn is blocked and/or that their kids can't go on the internet to view such things?

 

[RjThoughts]

It's a scourge. Scourges do that.

The question, of course, is: is this guy simply trying to say (badly) that he wants porn laws which make it illegal to pedal such to children enforced (I suspect that's what this is all about, though using the words "illegal adult porn" don't make it at all clear), or does he want to make pedaling hardcore porn illegal even to adults? If all he wants is to make sure kids can't see such things on the internet...well, good luck, but if this is the party of less government, then why is it up to the government rather than the parents to make sure the porn is blocked and/or that their kids can't go on the internet to view such things?

I hope he's not advocating the total ban of internet porn. If so, that will possibly mean classics such as "Lady Chatterly's Lover," "Fannie Hill," "Tom Jones," amongst others will never be read.

 

[Verdad]

I'm not sure what he's saying either, but I suspect that's the way it's supposed to be. Empty rhetoric and playing to a certain type of voter. Business as usual.

You're equally herded and yanked around if you go “save porn!” as if you went “clean the scourge!” Plenty other opinions to have about porn, not to mention, plenty other political issues to fret about.

At least that’s how it seems from this article. If some kind of attempt to control the internet is in the works, I’m not aware of it.

 

[sun_sea_sky]

Once again, it comes to education. If you think you can stop kids accessing porn, well good luck to you with your delusions.

Heck, we seem incapable of stopping spam, and no-one particularly wants to receive it (with the possible exception of people who are pleased to learn they have won the lottery, or a large inheritance).

If we can't stamp out spam, which 99% of people actually don't want, what hope have you got of stamping out porn, which a lot of people actually do want to get?

And if you think that you can somehow let porn through to adults, but not teenagers, well you better go chat with a teenager. Ask them about file sharing sites, cracking sites, how they work around DRM on videos, games, music, etc. They will (mostly) be very savvy about it.

No. The thing to do is educate people (particularly younger people) about how to understand, or relate to porn, as I posted earlier. Most porn is not "real" any more than Sherlock Holmes is real.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
It may be a slip of the tongue or it may be a reference to Obamacare and Medicare. The former basically rips off a large part of the funding of the latter, which may mean women, who tend to outlive men and have many health problems during old age, may have to pay a larger part of their health costs, besides paying into Medicare all their working lives and paying for Medicare from their Social Security benefits.

And the Ryan plan for Medicare is to give vouchers, which, if you have a parent in long-term nursing assisted housing, know will never work. The pittance of moenyt bandied around, $7500/year at the most, won't cover three months.

The money being taken out of Medicare is just waste, double billings and overage.

When Obamacare was being discussed in Congress, that was what its supporters were saying - that the difference would be made up by eliminating waste and fraud. I have no doubt whatsoever there is a lot of waste and fraud in any such large gov. program, but I don't believe it's that much, either in total dollars or as a percentage of the whole. The argument also raised the question, at least to me and, I presume, millions of others: If that much waste and fraud is known and recognized, why was it not eliminated long ago?

I don't know exactly how vouchers would work, and the exact method, if the idea were to be adopted, would have to be worked out, but it would have to be enough to pay for whatever is needed.

Penn Lady: But don't you see anything alarming in the statement that Obamacare is "potentially a serious war on women, allowing women to make their own healthcare choices." Really? Allowing women to make their own healthcare choices is a problem? That was what got me.

I noticed that, and thought it might be some kind of Bidenesque slip of the tongue, unless the reference was just to women on Medicare. Otherwise, it's pretty obvious the ability to choose, which Obamacare partly takes away, is to the betterment of those making the choice.

If you are wondering about that comment about Obamacare partly taking away choices, it's in the matter of people choosing to pass up health insurance. Some healthy young people would prefer to not have to pay for health insurance when they don't expect to need it, and Obamacare punishes anybody who makes the choice to do that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Found this on Salon: What Women's Issues?

Yes, I know Salon leans liberal and all that (so do I), and some of their stuff is just, well, stuff, but the thing here is not necessarily the article or the woman who wrote it but this nifty little quote by one of the women -- a Republican woman -- the author was speaking to.



(Emphasis mine)

I really hope she got a little mixed up speaking off the cuff.

No... the rest of her statements are kinda like that too.

 

[TxRad]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
It may be a slip of the tongue or it may be a reference to Obamacare and Medicare. The former basically rips off a large part of the funding of the latter, which may mean women, who tend to outlive men and have many health problems during old age, may have to pay a larger part of their health costs, besides paying into Medicare all their working lives and paying for Medicare from their Social Security benefits.




When Obamacare was being discussed in Congress, that was what its supporters were saying - that the difference would be made up by eliminating waste and fraud. I have no doubt whatsoever there is a lot of waste and fraud in any such large gov. program, but I don't believe it's that much, either in total dollars or as a percentage of the whole. The argument also raised the question, at least to me and, I presume, millions of others: If that much waste and fraud is known and recognized, why was it not eliminated long ago?

I don't know exactly how vouchers would work, and the exact method, if the idea were to be adopted, would have to be worked out, but it would have to be enough to pay for whatever is needed.



I noticed that, and thought it might be some kind of Bidenesque slip of the tongue, unless the reference was just to women on Medicare. Otherwise, it's pretty obvious the ability to choose, which Obamacare partly takes away, is to the betterment of those making the choice.

If you are wondering about that comment about Obamacare partly taking away choices, it's in the matter of people choosing to pass up health insurance. Some healthy young people would prefer to not have to pay for health insurance when they don't expect to need it, and Obamacare punishes anybody who makes the choice to do that.

The first part I highlighted is just ass backwards. National health care would give women more choices and more access to what they want and need without insurance companies ripping them off or excluding them.

The second part shows me that you have no idea how the system will work. Everyone! got that part. Will be offered an insurance plan at a low set rate. You can either take it or you can buy regular insurance at a lot higher rate. But you have to do one or the other.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Furthermore, there are a hella lot of young people who really don't feel healthy enough to forgo health insurance.

They don't have it because they can't afford it until now.

 

[TxRad]

Furthermore, there are a hella lot of young people who really don't feel healthy enough to forgo health insurance.

They don't have it because they can't afford it until now.

That's not just young people either.

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's not just young people either.

My best friend found a lump in one breast eighteen months ago. She didn't get it checked out because if it turned out to BE cancerous, she didn't have funding to take care of it. Not and, for instance, pay her rent and eat.

Now she can afford it, and she's having her second chemo session Friday. The lump was cancerous, and had metastasized into her lymph nodes during the year and a half wait.

 

[TxRad]

My best friend found a lump in one breast eighteen months ago. She didn't get it checked out because if it turned out to BE cancerous, she didn't have funding to take care of it. Not and, for instance, pay her rent and eat.

Now she can afford it, and she's having her second chemo session Friday. The lump was cancerous, and had metastasized into her lymph nodes during the year and a half wait.

I live in an older retired area. I hear it all the time, do I go to the doctor or eat this week. and these are people on Medicare with all the supplements they can afford. It's ridiculous.