backtop


Print 130 comment(s) - last by MrRuckus.. on Sep 4 at 2:26 PM


  (Source: TruTV)
The web says GTFO!

"The internet is for porn!" you say?

Well apparently the Republican Party's national leadership didn't get the memo.  

I. Gotta Ban 'em All

As part of its national platform, the Republican party is pushing for strict enforcement of existing anti-obscenity laws, which would effectively prohibit many kinds of pornography.

........................................

Cliff's Notes Explanation: 
U.S. federal laws banning most types of porn already exist, but are not enforced.  The Republican National Party is not calling for new laws on pornography.  They are calling for existing laws to be strictly and vigorously enforced.  The position is non-binding, though those who defy it may lose funding for their candidacy.

........................................

The new stand is rather unique in that it represents the first major effort in a long time to crack down on pornographic recordings of consenting adults.  Most efforts in recent decades have focused on cracking down on child pornography, due to its non-consensual nature and vast prevailing public opposition.

So what exactly is this proposed "porn ban"?

Porn hurts
Republicans hope to ban pornography to preserve "Christian values".
[Image Source: Kelly Manning Photography]

The Republican Party's new platform, which will be set to a vote on Tuesday states:

Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.

Federal politicians are by no means legally obligated to follow their party's national platform, but if they defy it they risk losing funding support from the "party bosses".

II. What Kinds of Porn Would be Banned?

The next natural question is what are "obscenity laws"?  

Obscenity laws, which generally are not currently enforced, include state and federal laws (see 18 U.S.C. 1461-68, 47 U.S.C. 223).  The laws prohibit sending obscene communications, selling and buying of obscene material, and accessing obscene material on the internet.

So what is obscene?

The case that legal experts say defines that is Miller v. California, a 1973 case involving Marv Miller, head of the West Coast's largest mail-order pornography business at the time.  In its ruling, the Supreme Court defined the criteria for obscenity as:

2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 354 U. S. 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. Pp. 413 U. S. 24-25.

Common sexual acts that would likely be deemed "obscene" under those guidelines are hardcore heterosexual sex, depictions of group sex, homosexual sex, fetish sex acts, and bondage.  Some forms of softcore or short-length sex are widely considered to be acceptable under the laws.

Fifty Shades of GrayBackdoor
The porn ban would include outlawing depictions of bondage and anal sex.
[Image Source: Google Images]

“Distribution of obscene or hardcore pornography on the Internet is a violation of current federal law,” says Patrick Trueman, president of Morality In Media, in a statement. "We are most grateful to Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who led the effort to get the tough new language into the platform. Without enforcement of federal obscenity laws, pornographers have had a green light to target our children and families."

By banning those multitude of sexual material, the Republican party would choke off a major chunk of internet pornography, which a recent study estimates makes up over 30 percent of the total internet data traffic.

For the record, British conservative leaders floated a similar anti-porn proposal, but it proved flaccid.  In the unlikelihood of a true U.S. ban on porn, it would join only a handful of nations, such as Iran, that have outlawed porn for religious reasons.

Sources: Reuters, Miller v. California



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 2:10:54 PM , Rating: 4
So a nonbinding statement of principles is somehow going to be a "ban" on porn?

I wish the Republican party would stay out of the social issues as much as the next guy. This is cringeworthly stuff. But at least be accurate and not sensationalize this.

Something didn't seem right about the premise here, so I did some digging. There is NO bill being drafted in Congress by Republicans or anyone that would ban anything. There is no plan to do so. This is just base-pandering and sabre rattling NONBINDING mission statement, so to speak.

Stupid and draconian? Yes. Anything that will effect anyone? No.




RE: Sigh
By Denigrate on 8/29/2012 2:14:40 PM , Rating: 1
Jason is just scared his favorite past time will be taken away.


RE: Sigh
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/2012 2:18:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Jason is just scared his favorite past time will be taken away.
No just looking out for you.

Don't want the GOP to take away your copy of Fifty Shades of Gray.

Who are they to judge you, man?


RE: Sigh
By Azethoth on 8/29/2012 3:56:41 PM , Rating: 1
Why can't the Republican government stay out of my business?


RE: Sigh
By msheredy on 8/29/2012 3:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why can't the government stay out of my business?


There. Fixed it for you.


RE: Sigh
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/2012 4:04:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There. Fixed it for you.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was some sane soul who wanted to reduce the size of the federal government and protect Americans' civil liberties. Oh wait, there is...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8pxf4gqna1qze54...


RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/2012 4:25:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would love to vote for him personally, but what can I do?
"Always vote for a principle, though you vote alone, and you may cherish the sweet reflection that your vote is never lost."
— John Quincy Adams

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
— Edmund Burke (Irish political philosopher)

"I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God.""
— Martin Luther King

"We must be the change we wish to see."
"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it."
— Gandhi


RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By retrospooty on 8/29/2012 4:43:35 PM , Rating: 6
How long? Not long. Because no lie can live forever.
— Martin Luther King

;)


RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By Stuka on 8/31/2012 3:17:12 PM , Rating: 1
I think Ron Paul is crazy too, but is he really so bad for saying things truthfully that are crazy, while the others say normal things which are lies?

We need to stop the "lesser of two evils" balogna. There is not just red and blue. If you vote Republican or Democrat because everyone else is gonna pick one or the other, you revoke all rights to criticize other people's decisions.


RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/31/2012 5:23:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We need to stop the "lesser of two evils" balogna. There is not just red and blue. If you vote Republican or Democrat because everyone else is gonna pick one or the other, you revoke all rights to criticize other people's decisions.


On principle I agree.

In the real world it doesn't work out that way. The fact is the Democrat party base is quite large, and is made up of people who would NEVER consider a Libertarian or Conservative candidate.

However the Republican party is split right now between die-hard Conservatives, and more moderate "mainstream" Republicans.

So you see, in reality if I were to vote for Ron Paul or some other third party person, it might as well be the same as voting for the Democrat party.

That's another reason why some of us feel so threatened by third party candidates. Everyone knows they never have a chance to win, but what they end up doing is siphoning off enough votes to sometimes ensure a Democrat victory.

Remember Ross Perot? A lot of us still have a bad taste in our mouth from how he completely torpedoed the election.


RE: Sigh
By RufusM on 8/29/2012 5:02:45 PM , Rating: 3
In Minnesota, the citizens elected Jesse Ventura Governor in 2000. He was an idiot, but it goes to show it can happen when people are fed up enough.

The real problem with a third party like that is the two parties in power won't cooperate for the most part. They will both will refuse to vote for new legislation because <insert proposal name here> doesn't fully align with what they represent <insert party talking point here>. The third party person would truly need to be a master politician of the highest order to make things happen.

The other problem is the American people are addicted to their government expectations. It's political suicide to tell the current electorate their government program is being reduced or is going away: entitlement programs, military spending, welfare, any subsidy, etc.


RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 5:13:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The real problem with a third party like that is the two parties in power won't cooperate for the most part. They will both will refuse to vote for new legislation because <insert proposal name here> doesn't fully align with what they represent <insert party talking point here>. The third party person would truly need to be a master politician of the highest order to make things happen.


Think bringing back the "Line Item Veto" would fix some the political bickering? I really think it should be brought back. It was also a really good way of keeping the spirit of legislation, while cutting the fat. Pork has just exploded since they removed the line item voto imo.


RE: Sigh
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/2012 5:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think bringing back the "Line Item Veto" would fix some the political bickering? I really think it should be brought back. It was also a really good way of keeping the spirit of legislation, while cutting the fat. Pork has just exploded since they removed the line item voto imo.
I agree with you there, bud.


RE: Sigh
By RufusM on 8/29/2012 5:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, our state Governor has line item veto authority and it's well worth having. Very much agreed gents!!


RE: Sigh
By Samus on 8/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By arazok on 8/30/2012 11:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm disagree. I saw him at an NFL game in a hot tub with two cheerleaders, WHILE GOVERNOR!

That guy f'n rocked.


RE: Sigh
By kamiller422 on 8/29/2012 5:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
Since we're into quotes...

"No man is an island,
Entire of itself."
- John Donne

"Man does not exist in a vacuum."

"Be free, yet without using freedom as a pretext for evil..."


RE: Sigh
By WinstonSmith on 8/30/2012 9:18:52 AM , Rating: 2
"Always vote for a principle, though you vote alone, and you may cherish the sweet reflection that your vote is never lost."
— John Quincy Adams

Yeah, right...

I spent years busting my butt along with my fellow county LP officers fighting the multi-TRILLION dollar taxpayer money gravy train against the headwinds of an uninformed, intellectually lazy, heavily propagandized citizenry, a mainstream press that covers everything in a superficial manner to correspond to the level of their audience, and the BS generating, multi-billion dollar machines of the major parties who offer a "choice" between bought and paid for shill A and bought and paid for shill B. During that time, I and every one of my fellow officers came to the conclusion that ours was an absolutely hopeless cause and that until the games and circuses are gone, Joe and Jane Sixpack will always be suckered into voting for one the "lesser of two evils" major parties each of which is nothing more than a gang of influence peddling power seekers.

For years, I have not bothered to vote in national elections, refusing to participate in a complete and total farce:

Where the People Don't Rule

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed139.html


RE: Sigh
By msheredy on 8/29/2012 4:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
Huh, haven't heard of him till now. Thanks!


RE: Sigh
By Ringold on 8/30/2012 4:58:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, on the one hand, I love the Libertarian Party just the way it is. On the other, I understand it's stillborn as a political party unless it changes its position on a lot of things.

I think they know that, too, but aren't willing to sell their political souls for the sake of votes. That makes their efforts somewhat pointless, but it's a perfectly noble choice on their part. After all, a morally compromised Libertarian is just another Democrat or Republican, depending on the issue that corrupted them.

What I'll never understand is the 1/3 to 1/2 of Ron Paul supporters that switch to Obama... Couldn't be any more ideologically different.


RE: Sigh
By WinstonSmith on 8/30/2012 9:44:38 AM , Rating: 2
"it's stillborn as a political party unless it changes its position on a lot of things."

No, it's stillborn as long as it doesn't have many hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on campaigns within our perverted system. And if that were ever miraculously fixed, it would then have the uphill battle of educating an uninformed, heavily propagandized from birth citizenry apparently incapable of utilizing the critical thought process.

Until that is fixed, and it will NEVER BE until the current system self destructs, the LP can just fugetaboutit.


RE: Sigh
By Ammohunt on 8/30/2012 10:18:35 PM , Rating: 1
Trade leftist extremists for Libertarian extremists no thank you.


RE: Sigh
By msheredy on 8/31/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By EricMartello on 8/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By Moishe on 8/30/2012 3:53:17 PM , Rating: 5
Just to clarify, I'm not a repub, and I don't dislike porn... BUT:

quote:
No just looking out for you. Don't want the GOP to take away your copy of Fifty Shades of Gray. Who are they to judge you, man?


BS. The article is written in an inflammatory manner, especially since others have already pointed out that it's non-binding.

As well, the title under one of the images is
quote:
Republicans hope to ban pornography to preserve "Christian values". [Image Source: Kelly Manning Photography]


How do you know why they want to ban porn? Do you think it's really for values? Not just Christians think that porn can be harmful, and not just Christian/religious people think that unenforced laws are dead weight.

I think it's partially pandering (making a statement to gain support from a group), but I think it's mostly that they realize that most mature people don't view porn as healthy and they are planting a flag on that position. It's fair game to do that, and it is probably close to the majority view. Either way, they're perfectly entitled to it without it being misconstrued to be something that it is not.

Now, personally, I don't care who wants porn as long as it's not viewed by kids (because I think that is harmful). So don't get me wrong, laws that outlaw porn are probably not great. On the other hand, I think that laws need to be enforced, or they need to be repealed. An unenforced law is garbage and it's mere existence reduces our freedom.

I do think there should be TV obscenity laws. Clearly those are not being enforced well. What people do on the internet or on PPV should be nobody else's business as long as the guardian is only allowing adults to view it.


RE: Sigh
By oakc73 on 8/31/2012 12:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
Jason you've lost what little bit of reputation you had left with your flat out assault and use of scare tactics on the GOP.

One could argue that the DNC is for killing perfectly natural babies so long as their little toe is still not outside the mother's body. Read too far in to anything and you can make any conclusion you want.

Jason Mick = Hack limp wrist journalism at its finest.


RE: Sigh
By MrRuckus on 9/4/2012 2:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
It's a choice. It's part of the womans body until it can live on its own.

If you idiots have your way pretty soon a miscarriage will carry a prison sentence...

Where's your bleeding heart for the millions of animals that are slaughtered daily. It's life man, and its a choice.


RE: Sigh
By mattclary on 8/29/2012 3:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
It's "pass time", not "past time".

Seriously, WTF do they teach in school nowadays?


RE: Sigh
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/2012 4:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's "pass time", not "past time".

Seriously, WTF do they teach in school nowadays?
Actually, you're both wrong...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pastime?s=t

:)

Pass time is when everyone in class has to show their passes. Past time is what you write your history homework on. Pastime is what you do when you get home.


RE: Sigh
By chimto on 8/29/2012 4:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
Uhh... maybe you should make english your favorite "pastime". ;)

https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=ww&authuser...


RE: Sigh
By Florinator on 8/29/2012 4:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
You too actually... It's "English"...


RE: Sigh
By Ringold on 8/30/2012 5:00:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seriously, WTF do they teach in school nowadays?


Based on all empirical evidence... Not much.


RE: Sigh
By woody1 on 8/30/2012 5:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Funny that your "correction" is more incorrect than his spelling...


RE: Sigh
By VelociRapture on 9/3/2012 2:43:18 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you mean: wronger?


RE: Sigh
By retrospooty on 8/29/2012 2:15:40 PM , Rating: 5
"I wish the Republican party would stay out of the social issues as much as the next guy."

Exactly. These nutjobs that took over the party have got to go.

Back in the day, the rep. party stood for a low taxes business friendly scale, small govt. and leave people the hell alone with their personal lives. Who could argue with that simple logic.

Now the rep. party is taken over by religious nutjobs that want to control what gays and women do with their bodies. Some of them want to censor what we see on TV and the internet. Irritating as hell.


RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Sigh
By retrospooty on 8/29/12, Rating: -1
RE: Sigh
By EnzoFX on 8/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By retrospooty on 8/29/2012 5:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say they are both totally inept and irresponsible and furthermore, both robbing us blind to the point of being criminal. All 'em all.


RE: Sigh
By Cerin218 on 8/29/2012 6:13:57 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, do some research on Collectivism. Democrat, Liberal, progressive, communist, Marxist, are all differing degrees of Collectivism. The philosophies and epistemology of collectivism are based an a hatred of mankind. So yes, actually the Democrats ARE trying to destroy America even if they don't come out and say it (actually Obama's handler Soros is QUITE vocal of his dislike of this country, which is where many of Obama's horrible ideas like Obamacare have come from. Soros has vowed to destroy captialism). The current administration has all but taken "From each according to ability, to each according to need" as a campaign slogan. Hence the race and class warfare they love to push. Their followers consciously avoid the truth and live in a state of hypocrisy. Which is why Obama hiding his transcripts is not acknowledged the same way as Romney not showing his tax returns. They spend money in attempt to legislate social and economic justice. Basically you deserve simply because you have need, not based on your ability to produce. Things like Civil Rights is a form of discrimination. So is Affirmative Action.
Democrats prey on the weak, the lazy, and the stupid. Because it works. Promise people things, especially for nothing, and you will have their loyalty. If you steal from Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote. What scares me is that the Democrats don't care who they take down with them. The whole point is destruction remember?Why should anyone be allowed to be great, when EVERYONE can be mediocre? It isn't fair to the mediocre. Why should the rich have when the poor do not? Obamacare was all about control and "equality". The original sin of Democrats is pity.
People are willing to do something about it, but when I see the Tea Party villified while OWS is celebrated, I know this country is truly lost. Sad part about collectivism is that because it preys on human weakness. Republicans of today are a tiny bit better, but going down the same road, just slower.


RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By burchoff on 8/29/2012 10:57:35 PM , Rating: 2
So I am going to ignore everything else you said, because the most interesting thing you said to me is your comment on Collectivism.

Now I am willing to agree with what you said about Collectivism, but going all the way to the other extreme of Individualism also has its draw backs. From my experience and observation, there are gifted individuals who start an idea, but for that idea to grow they need a team, which is also another type of collective, to bring that idea to complete fruition.

In the arena of sports, there is only one Sport that I know other Americans love, which focuses on the achievements of the Individual is golf. Though if one was to look at the entire life of a professional golfer I surely doubt the reason for success can be 100% attributed to the golfer. Every other sport that is popular in America is Team based. Yes we have Stars that allow us to celebrate what the individual is capable of accomplishing, but if that star was left on the court/field by themselves with the rest of the team on the bench the team would loose the game.

Successful companies are built by the individual hardwork of a group of people, who are for the most part all going in the same direction. Hell there is no reason for companies to sell shares on the stock market if they do not plan to use the money invested by a large group of people to further the goal of the company.

With all that said the problem is not Collectivism. As Collectivism cannot be evil at its core. It is like all things a tool. And if you see or percieve any evil in the tool, it is 100% attributed to the user.


RE: Sigh
By Ringold on 8/30/2012 5:19:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now I am willing to agree with what you said about Collectivism, but going all the way to the other extreme of Individualism also has its draw backs.


America is mankinds largest experiment in extreme individualism to date, an experiment that was pretty pure until the 1940s.

We went from being a barely-surviving collections of farms that amounted to a bump on the ass of the British Empire to being the greatest, most powerful nation on the face of the planet by the time we started down the collectivist path in the 40s.

I'm not really seeing serious draw backs in how that turned out, but maybe I'm missing something.

quote:
there are gifted individuals who start an idea, but for that idea to grow they need a team, which is also another type of collective, to bring that idea to complete fruition.


In my own experience, calling it a "team" and stroking peoples egos is all a game. They are not a "team" and a company is not a "family". They are employees, because at the end of the day they likely wouldn't do a damn thing for that 'gifted individual' if not for a pay check. As someone that does occasionally hire and fire as well, I don't want collectivist drones either; I want individuals. Individuals can bring new ideas to the table and push agendas forward. Drones meekly await instruction from their overlords. Good for janitors, not much else.

You also bring up sports teams, which are made up of (also highly paid) individuals. I think you might be painting a wider brush then the OP on collectivism.

quote:
As Collectivism cannot be evil at its core. It is like all things a tool. And if you see or percieve any evil in the tool, it is 100% attributed to the user.


Problem is, as far as I can see in history, collectivism has always either been used with ill intent (Stalin, Mao) or, if nothing else, simply had a negative outcome regardless (Greece, Detroit). That makes collectivism itself a problem.

And I tip my hat to the OP, that was an excellent post. The hate, pure disdain, for mankind and civilization I've always thought was most obvious in the environmental movement. They've been caught outright saying awful things, but the proof is in the pudding: Natural gas was a great idea according to them, until it suddenly became possible. Now its hated almost as much as coal. Solar plants they protest, because of that diverse desert ecosystem it might disrupt. Wind turbines? Kills birds. Nuclear? OMG CHERNOBYL! They oppose everything, because deep down, they think the human population should be under a billion and live like the ancient Greeks, if not like homo habalis.

FWIW, founder of Green Peace agrees with me. :P


RE: Sigh
By burchoff on 8/30/2012 9:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
Individualism has its draw backs, Serial Killers are a manifestation of individualism. The Drug dealer on the corner are also a manifestation of individualism. And there are alot more extreme examples that could be used to counter your picturesque perspective.

I would also have to ask, what point is there in having a country or national identity, if we are all supposed to be purely individuals. What point is there in even having the Armed Forces, as they are every country's biggest example of collectivism.

Now from your post I surmise that what you really have a problem with are people who completely give up their individual identity to the collective. And I would completely agree with you. Work is much more interesting and enjoyable when you are surrounded by people who have a wealth of creative ideas of their own to bring to the table. However, once the brainstorming is over you generally have to filter all these ideas down to one or two. Depending on the resources and direction of the firm.

If one of the individuals did not appreciate having their idea dropped on the floor then they can pick it up leave the company and start a business around that idea

Though they are likely to have a court battle on their hands about who owns the idea, because the contract they signed when they started with the firm lays claim to all their ideas. Now this is an example of an Individual trying to use Collectivism for evil (evil may be a strong word in this case).

From where I stand, a successful country is based on a balanced mix of individualism and collectivism. With Individualism providing a means for people to reach their maximum potential. While Collectivism is used to hint at the general direction the individuals should go in, and provides a context for the country to define what their "moral" protocol is when those Individualism practicing people are interacting with one another.

Now this is type of balance is not easy, and it cannot be completely implemented from the top down.


RE: Sigh
By Cerin218 on 8/31/2012 4:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
Here is an illustration of WHY collectivism is evil. Try to understand this on several levels.

Why collectivism doesn’t work

When I was younger, I used to believe that communism and socialism were, in general, good ideas that had simply been poorly implemented, or abused, or used as excuses for atrocities such as those in the Soviet Union. After all, who could argue with the idea of “brotherly love”? It seemed even “logical” that everything would be better if people just stopped being so “selfish”, and cooperated, everyone working for “the group”.

Many factors changed my way of thinking as I grew older, but the one thing that made me understand what communism really was – not what implementations of it were, but what it really was, and could never be anything else, despite all the seeminly good intentions – was Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”.

Especially one of my favorite sections, the one where Jeff Allen tells Dagny Taggart the sad story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company.

That story made such an impression on me that, even after I had only read the book once, I was able to tell it to people – it’s simply impossible to forget, as every part follows naturally, logically, from the one before.

So, there was a motor factory called the Twentieth Century Motor Company, which was highly successful, known as being synonymous with quality through the country. Then, the owner died, and the factory went to his three children (two men and a woman), who had big “progressive” (in that context, an euphemism for “socialist”) ideas – the main part of it being that well known communist ideal, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

The six thousand workers approved, of course – since they were made to feel that anyone who didn’t agree with such “brotherly love” was an evil, selfish monster. And so, that ideal went into practice – everyone worked, supposedly as much as he or she was able to, but wasn’t paid according to time, or results – instead, all of the profits from sales were put together in a common “pool”, then divided according to need.

However, they immediately had a problem: what is really “need”, and what is but a desire? What defines “need”? There’s no absolute standard for it, since what to some is just a pleasure, to others may be a vital need, and vice-versa. And so, they voted. Yes, every 6 months or so, they had huge meetings where they all voted on each one’s need – and how did you convince others? By begging, by pleading, by convincing everyone that they were worse off than others, that they had more health problems, had more children to feed, that they suffered more, and therefore had a greater “need”. In a little time, six thousand workers had turned into six thousand beggars – because no one had any “right” to the result of their work, that line of thought was dead, by then.

Naturally, since work wasn’t tied to earnings any more, no one had any incentive to work harder, and production dropped sharply in the first year. In a meeting, then, they decided that it had happened because some workers weren’t giving their all, they weren’t using all of their ability, and therefore would have to work extra hours at night – without pay, of course – to improve the situation. Who? The most able, of course – and again, they voted on who those were. Obviously, since that day, everyone would hide the slightest sign of ability – indeed, they would compete as to who would appear more incompetent. Being incompetent meant being “needier”, and was rewarded; being competent was a curse, since it meant you “needed” less – and had to work harder, to support the “needy” ones.

For some reason (!), production dropped even more.

It got worse. It was decided that no one could have any kind of luxury until everyone’s basic needs were met – and any kind of entertainment, cultural activity or amusement were the first to go. Books? That was a luxury. Music? The same. What right had anyone to a book when there were people starving? And the standard of living – for everyone just kept going down. Lots of people turned to alcohol.

Anything that made people “needier”, such as becoming ill, or having a baby, was a reason for everyone to hate that person – since he or she would be, supposedly, “taking” more from the pool. People also began to spy on their neighbours, so that they could report on anyone who was faking his or her “needs”.

In four years, the company was bankrupt. What a surprise.


RE: Sigh
By Cerin218 on 8/31/2012 4:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg....

This speech is one of the greatest reasons that I find collectivism EVIL.


RE: Sigh
By Cerin218 on 8/31/2012 4:35:53 PM , Rating: 2
"From where I stand, a successful country is based on a balanced mix of individualism and collectivism. With Individualism providing a means for people to reach their maximum potential. While Collectivism is used to hint at the general direction the individuals should go in, and provides a context for the country to define what their "moral" protocol is when those Individualism practicing people are interacting with one another."

That is called a "contradiction" The whole point of collectivism is to remove individualism. And why should the "collective" provide "moral protocol"? The individual is responsible for their own morality.

"In answer to the question: "If a morality is not based on the common good, what is it then based on?": on a definition of the moral individual and on that which is good for him. The moral individual is the best and highest possible to man. By what standard? By the essence of man's nature. The man living in accordance with his nature is the moral man and the "surviving" man -- he carries the life force, the life principle, he is the self-renewing "energy" and the fountainhead. What is man's nature? Man is a reasoning being.

And since morality is a matter of free will, open to all but the insane -- the good of the moral man is good for all, i.e., for all those who wish to be moral.

What is good? That which is in accordance with the life principle of man. The independent, the self-reverent, the self-sufficient.

Do I set myself up as an arbitrary elite and formulate a morality for my own kind of elite, at the expense of others? No, because it is not to be enforced upon "others" or anyone. "Others" are free not to accept it and not to subscribe to it; they may have their own kind of collectivism, altruism or whatever they wish. But they are not free to enforce it upon me and my "elite" -- they are not free to arrange their collectivism at our expense. The objective dividing line is: no man exists for the sake of another man. [...]

This point -- no man exists for the sake of another man -- must be established very early in my system. It is one of the main cornerstones -- and perhaps even the basic axiom."


RE: Sigh
By Cerin218 on 8/31/2012 4:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
You need to understand collectivism which I am not sure that you do. Check out this for greater clarification http://freedomkeys.com/collectivism.htm.

I can't find ANY draw backs to individualism. Your example does not illustrate a drawback, but a strength. A man has an idea. They either have the means to produce that idea, or they do not. If they do not, then the Division of Labor comes into play. Or in other words, you seek out people with the talents and abilities that you need to produce your idea. You enter into a mutual contract with that individual where they provide you with their ability in return for compensation that you both agree upon. This allows that person to benefit from the idea they DIDN'T have for what they are good at. If at any point in time either party is not fulfilling the agreement, both parties have the ability to sever that agreement. So in reality, although you are individuals that are united in a common goal, you both benefit from the arrangement, which is voluntary.

This can can also be applied to sports teams.

You seem to want to equate "group" and "team" to collective. You might be part of a group, but you still retain control over your existence as an individual and still have the right to determine whether you want to participate in that group.

To illustrate collectivism, you wake up tomorrow and that in order to eliminate unemployment the government has created a law that prohibits you from quitting your job or you will be put in prison, and mandates that you are paid a set wage for doing that job, regardless of the hours you work, or the work that you do. Reference communism.

You view collective as positive because you see group as positive. I see individualism as positive with group being voluntary. As always, my needs are more important than the groups needs. I just left a job because they paid poorly and demanded more from me than I was willing to give in return. I was one of the top people there so my performance made me valuable to the group yet my own needs were more important to me. I had the freedom to leave.


RE: Sigh
By alphadogg on 8/30/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By Cerin218 on 8/31/2012 4:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
Your post is stupid by simply calling someone else stupid. But your collectivist bias is shining through quite well. Do you KNOW what the philosophies and epistemology of collectivist are? Do you even know what epistemology is?

I'll start you out, one of the philosophies of collectivism is Altruism. Explain to me how that ISN'T a hatred on mankind.

Put your brain where your ignorant mouth is.


RE: Sigh
By MrBlastman on 8/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By RufusM on 8/29/2012 5:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
Reagan was no prince either. He did some good things and talked the talk, but he didn't exactly practice what he preached.

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=48...

This article even misses the large increase in welfare spending passed by Reagan. Reagan spent money like it grew on trees.


RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 5:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
That website is a RAG! Seldom have I seen such a desperately slanted and offensive assassination of Reagan. The last time someone took a shot at Reagan this warped, well, his name was John Hinkley Jr.

Sad legacy? Nobody unbiased or informed could possibly make the argument that Reagan left a "sad" legacy behind.

Yes he increased spending. However unlike Democrats, who always claim they can do this, he grew the economy drastically while doing so. Like it grew on trees? Come on, compare his 24% of GDP spending to Carter or Obama. You embarrass yourself.

"Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector."


I'm not surprised to see something like this on an Austrian website. This is a typical leftist fallacy, and explains his flawed analysis of most of Reagan's policies. Cutting taxes doesn't rob the productive sector. Ever. In every case cutting taxes has INCREASED economic productivity, which ironically, increases Government tax revenue. It sounds counter-intuitive to those who don't understand our economy, but it's a proven fact.

The economy saw explosive growth under Reagan. No other possible analysis is possible. Only by viewing this through some warped revisionist history, can it be stated that "Reaganomics" wasn't a huge success.


RE: Sigh
By RufusM on 8/29/2012 6:28:42 PM , Rating: 4
Look, I agree this article paints a bad picture all together and Reagan did some good too. My main point is he increased spending and the national debt wildly during his tenure and increased the scope and reach of government in the process; the very things he spoke against in his speeches.

I just don't see Reagan through the rose colored glasses many conservatives see him through today. The economy in the 80s was booming but Reagan didn't have THAT much to do with it just like Clinton didn't have THAT much to do with the boom of the 90s. There were plenty of circumstances that enabled the kind of growth in the 80s, just like the 90s with one of the main growth factors being global technology leadership. There was also the 80s real estate bubble that crashed after the Savings and Loan crisis (which Bush Senior led and Reagan followed on) so the economy was inflated to boot. Economies grow through the right balance of economic regulation and economic freedom which encourages investment, competition and innovation. Too much of one or the other and things go badly.


RE: Sigh
By Ringold on 8/30/2012 5:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
Generally, I agree that most presidents don't have total control over their own economic fate, but some times they do.

Clinton I give HUGE credit to not for creating his boom, but staying out of its way, and governing from the middle after 1994. Some times not getting in the way is as laudable as anything else when it comes to politicians. If you look at the history of the tech firms that lead the way in the 90s, they got their head of steam going in the 80s.

But Reagan inherited nothing that would have, of its own accord, generated the massive economic boom that was the 80s. He inherited a regulatory nightmare, and a country with a business and investing class that was dispirited and besieged. He took an axe to everything he could on the government side, and boosted confidence in the business world that America was once again a good place to do business. People knew Reagan meant business, and there was certainty to his policies and the direction the country was going in, encouraging long-term investment.

Reclaimer is right; any suggestion Reagan wasn't responsible for that economic boom is desperation on the left, jealousy that they have to go back to the 40s to find a similar hero figure that was relatively untainted. They never extoll Kennedy much; I can only imagine it having something to do with being a huge proponent of tax cuts himself...

As for an inflated economy, the recession in the first Bush years was mild, what one would expect from a run of the mill business cycle. Economies dont boom in perpetuity. The ground the economy made in the 80s was built on a solid foundation, unlike more recent years, with a decade of gains lost.

Which gets us to the Bush Jr years. His great sin, IMO? Very, very few people saw this magnitude of an implosion coming, but if he'd just applied free-market principles from the start and eliminated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac early on as a pure matter of economic principle, it turns out he'd of short-circuited a lot of what went wrong before too much asset inflation took place. Beyond that, I dont know how anyone can blame him when (almost) nobody suspected the Fed had unwittingly been fueling inflation, but in asset prices instead of retail prices. Greenspan's smarter than 99% of us I suspect, and he didn't see it.

You're right though, economies do grow with the right balance of freedom and oversight. Problem is, you don't seem to see Carter had implemented vastly too much of the latter, and Reagan took an axe to it and restored the business worlds faith in America. Obama's committed a similar sin; boosting regulation, creating an environment where businesses fear investing lest their money get spent only to be wasted when a regulatory hammer drops, or some competing technology or company gets a subsidy.


RE: Sigh
By alphadogg on 8/30/2012 10:43:29 AM , Rating: 1
"Come on, compare his 24% of GDP spending to Carter or Obama. You embarrass yourself."

I think the embarrassing part is the cherry-picking on your behalf. Why not compare to Clinton?

"This is a typical leftist fallacy, and explains his flawed analysis of most of Reagan's policies. Cutting taxes doesn't rob the productive sector..."

Right. But, there are also "typical rightist fallacies": tax increases, up to a certain point, do not decrease revenue and tax cuts do not increase revenue more than tax increases. Looking at Reagan and Clinton pretty much show that. There's a complex balance and an economic context that political soundbites do not do justice.

Of course, between the two, the only one who produced a balanced budget was... hint: not a Republican.


RE: Sigh
By tayb on 8/29/2012 3:25:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Back in the day, the rep. party stood for a low taxes business friendly scale, small govt. and leave people the hell alone with their personal lives. Who could argue with that simple logic.


Back in what day? Seriously, what time period has this actually been true? This hasn't been true for at least 30 years.


RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 3:47:15 PM , Rating: 1
And when was it EVER true of the Democrats?


RE: Sigh
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/2012 3:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And when was it EVER true of the Democrats?
Actually by the standards of 120+ years ago, both parties of today's fiscal platforms would be considered insane, unsustainable, and ruinous.

Romney won't even commit anymore to balancing the budget by the end of his second term (2020):
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/19/71104...

And his numbers are awfully fishy if you look at them...

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-impossible-ta...

quote:
But Romney’s claim that he can somehow slash individual income tax rates without losing federal revenue or favoring the wealthy remains at best unproven, and in our judgment, based on available evidence, impossible.
In reality, both candidates reflect on similar policies -- deficit spending for special interests. Hence all the hard pandering to extremists on the left and right.

Just how much deficit spending to Obama and Romney planning?

That's hard to say. They're both clearly obfuscating their true fiscal plans, and unless you're psychic no one can see the future.

Comparing Obama and Romney is kind of like comparing which would be a nicer neighbor -- Charlie Manson or Geoffrey Dahmer. Both are unpredictable and by no means fiscally conservative when you look at their actual plans.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/22/paul-ryan-is...

How bad it gets in either case is just speculation, but be clear -- it will almost surely get bad.

The ONLY people with sane fiscal policy are folks like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. And look at what the Republicans did to Paul, denying him the right to speak at their convention and subjecting him to an Orwellian delay/search at the airport, as if a U.S. Representative is a security risk.

If you vote Obama, sure you're backing special interests and deficit spending. But don't delude yourself -- you're voting for special interests and deficit spending if you vote for Romney, too.

You'd be better off voting for Gary Johnson or writing in Ron Paul if you truly want to balance the budget.


RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/2012 4:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not interested in this same argument with you. Just admit that you got called out for wildly slanting this situation to be anti-Republican (as usual). And that there will not be a "ban" on porn and sex acts whatsoever. Come on man, is it a slow news day or something?


RE: Sigh
By ven1ger on 8/29/2012 4:26:02 PM , Rating: 3
I can name a couple of representatives that I'd consider to be security risks. Michelle Bachmann and Alan West, both nutcases.


RE: Sigh
By KCjoker on 8/29/2012 6:22:00 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, and I can name two extreme libs for the other side...Pelosi and Reid. We need to vote all these idiots that have been in for decades that work the system.


RE: Sigh
By Reclaimer77 on 8/29/12, Rating: 0
RE: Sigh
By Ringold on 8/30/2012 5:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
Allen West? Nut case?

Wow. Liberals just can't accept a highly educated black man that's a veteran, a Republican, and wildly popular with white people.


RE: Sigh
By Cerin218 on 8/31/2012 5:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
And your criteria for judging?


RE: Sigh
By Ringold on 8/30/2012 5:49:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Romney won't even commit anymore to balancing the budget by the end of his second term (2020):


But its a lot more credible coming from him then the guy running annual trillion-dollar deficits, which in case anyone loses track of how much money that is.. It's a thousand billion. I know, obvious math, but the human mind has a hard time wrapping itself around a million of anything, much less a trillion. And again, thats from the guy that promised to cut Bush's deficit in half, but instead made it much larger.

At any rate, I wouldn't commit either if I was him. A trillion is a lot to cut, and depends partly on the economy. A stronger economy could easily boost tax receipts several hundred billion, but getting the rest of the way, especially if Republican's dont hold the Senate, may not be easy. Toss in a curve ball like a Eurozone collapse, and a balanced budget might not be possible.

Just getting it down to 1 or 2% of GDP would be a huge help, then at least it'd slowly shrink relative to GDP..


RE: Sigh
By Cerin218 on 8/31/2012 4:25:08 PM , Rating: 3
Romney and Obama are one in the same.


RE: Sigh
By tayb on 8/29/2012 4:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares? I never said it was.


RE: Sigh
By retrospooty on 8/29/2012 4:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Back in what day? Seriously, what time period has this actually been true? This hasn't been true for at least 30 years."

Hell if I know. It's long before I was born. It's pretty much the "creedo" of the republican party, but has been totally brushed aside in favor of messing with womens bodies, caring what 2 gay men do alone in their bedroom and trying to reduce the amount of brown people in the country. Nucking futs... All of it.


RE: Sigh
By Florinator on 8/29/2012 4:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
Also it's funny how someone was saying this is just some saber rattling to energize the base. I thought it was the conservative base who were the biggest porn consumers to begin with... The Bible Belt states... there are numerous studies on that.


RE: Sigh
By superstition on 8/29/2012 11:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the "red" states are the biggest consumers of porn, with Utah at the lead.


RE: Sigh
By Moishe on 8/30/2012 4:02:14 PM , Rating: 2
Why should the R part stay out of social issues? The Dems are constantly pandering to their weirdo fringe groups using social issues like gay rights, abortion, etc. Fair is fair.

When it comes right down to it, politics is about ideology and human believe and emotion. People aren't logical. Politicians (on every side) who need 5 more votes search for a fringe group that has those 5 votes and then they pander. They try to do that without losing 5 votes from their base. If they lose 5 base votes and gain 12 fringe votes, it's a win.

I'm not a repub, but I think this is a one-sided attack. Both parties are too anti-freedom and anti-individual for me to support.


RE: Sigh
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/29/2012 2:16:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So a nonbinding statement of principles is somehow going to be a "ban" on porn?
And I wrote...
quote:
Federal politicians are by no means legally obligated to follow their party's national platform, but if they defy it they risk losing funding support from the "party bosses".
So yes, you can defy your party's platform freely.

But typically doing so means risking funding.
quote:
Something didn't seem right about the premise here, so I did some digging. There is NO bill being drafted in Congress by Republicans or anyone that would ban anything. There is no plan to do so. This is just base-pandering and sabre rattling NONBINDING mission statement, so to speak.
There's no need to. Anti-Obscenity laws are already on the books. Let me link you to the criminal code sections I reference in the article, please read.

Also read the Supreme Court case link, which I already included.

In short, there are laws banning virtually all porn, the government just is not enforcing them. The Republican Party's platform draft, to be ratified Tuesday calls for enforcement of those laws, NOT new laws.


RE: Sigh
By Natch on 8/29/2012 2:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
Not to worry. Once women realize that enforcing the laws will mean no more steamy paragraphs in their Harlequin romance books, they'll tell these guys where to stuff it!


RE: Sigh
By wookie1 on 8/29/2012 4:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
The nonbinding statement of principles becomes a directive to the FCC, FBI, etc, to crack down after the candidate is elected.

Both parties are all about having the government handle the minute details of your life, they differ in how these details will be handled.


RE: Sigh
By Moishe on 8/30/2012 4:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
exactly.


RE: Sigh
By woody1 on 8/30/2012 5:43:34 PM , Rating: 2
Next thing, the Repubs will require men to use tongs to urinate so they don't "touch" themselves.


Hypocrites
By jvillaro on 8/29/2012 2:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
Republicans really must hate sex... unless it's gay sex




RE: Hypocrites
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 8/29/2012 2:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Republicans really must hate sex

You clearly missed this line:
quote:
Some forms of softcore or short-length sex are widely considered to be acceptable under the laws.

They like sex, just not sex involving liberals in tiger suits!
http://theweek.com/article/index/212374/oregon-dem...


RE: Hypocrites
By BroNumsi on 8/30/2012 4:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
They like sex, just not the kind that other people get to have. Sweaty, nasty, uninhibited, dirty sex... mmmm...


RE: Hypocrites
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/29/2012 2:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
What choo talking about Willis? Republicans clearly are into all sorts of sex, including sex with alien Democrats...

i.e., Mary Matalin and James Carville ;)


RE: Hypocrites
By NellyFromMA on 8/29/2012 3:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
ACtually, I think Republicans hate gay sex the most..


RE: Hypocrites
By retrospooty on 8/29/2012 3:14:26 PM , Rating: 4
Quite the opposite, It's a closet thing. They are far too repressed and have their own sexual tendencies that aren't getting an outlet so they lash out at gays to hide their own internal gay tendencies.


RE: Hypocrites
By woody1 on 8/30/2012 5:45:03 PM , Rating: 2
Unless they get caught doing it.


RE: Hypocrites
By kamiller422 on 8/29/2012 5:56:30 PM , Rating: 1
Can't speak for RINOs, but studies have shown conservatives have more satisfying sex and achieve orgasm more than liberals. They're just better at it.

This is one...
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/study-says-re...


We Need Less Government!
By alphadogg on 8/29/2012 4:18:15 PM , Rating: 3
"We Need Less Government! We don't be socialists!", cry the repubs day in and day out...when it comes to things like regulating banks or other businesses.

But, pron?

"Bring it on! We love government!"

See the hypocrisy, Mitt?




RE: We Need Less Government!
By autoboy on 8/29/2012 4:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
You can't lay all that on the feet of Mitt. Just like not all Democrats are communists, you can't say all Republicans are socially conservative. By all accounts Mitt is a moderate Republican especially on social issues which is what almost lost him the nomination. The social conservatives went through every candidate before finally realizing defeat. They don't weild that much power in the Republican party, but are still a major voting block that will always go Republican anyways. As a fiscal focused Republican myself, I don't personally see that much influence from the social side this election cycle even if the Left likes to push that narrative to scare people. He disapproves of abortion and gay marriage but those topics haven't been on his agenda so I don't think he'll be pushing for legislation on either. His Mormon religion also prohibits smoking, drinking, and caffeine, but just because you believe something doesn't mean he'll govern that way.


RE: We Need Less Government!
By alphadogg on 8/30/2012 8:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think you missed the point.

The major push from the whole Republican party is about "Less Government", yet they keep going back to bringing out the banhammer just as easily as the Democrats do.


RE: We Need Less Government!
By Moishe on 8/30/2012 4:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think we should have obscenity laws, or none at all, or is there a middle-ground?

I think TV and radio should be censored as they are now. Makes sense that anything the "public" is paying for should be safe for all of the public, including kids, older folks, and religious people.

Remove all laws and let me flash my junk at grandma on the street. Is that better?

How about total restriction?

The point is that there are laws that are good and laws that are bad. I think they should be either removed or enforced. I would have a great deal of respect for the government if they would enforce the law fairly and consistently.


Weekend Outlook looks pretty bleak!!!
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 8/29/2012 2:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Common sexual acts that would likely be deemed "obscene" under those guidelines are hardcore heterosexual sex, depictions of group sex, homosexual sex, fetish sex acts, and bondage.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




By Camikazi on 8/29/2012 4:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
OMG that is pretty much everything, I think tentacle porn might be the safe one since they didn't mention bestiality or non consent :P


By Moishe on 8/30/2012 4:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
If they mean, no porn on public airwaves, in public, etc... OK I'm for that.

If they mean, no porn at all, anywhere... Well... fuxk no. What I do with my dog, cat, and granny in my own room is none of anyone's business.


By futrtrubl on 8/30/2012 10:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
Except by the definition in the law they likely wouldn't be deemed obscene since they have to be "patently offensive" ie "openly, plainly, or clearly visible as offensive to the viewing public." The viewing public being the people that go view it. I don't think they would find what they actively seek to be offensive. If it were shown on billboards at Times Square then it would be considered offensive.

Also it seems that the Ross standard has been replaced by the Miller test.


Every time I see stuff like this I cringe
By autoboy on 8/29/2012 2:54:02 PM , Rating: 1
As a young atheist Republican this crap makes me sick. I wish the economically sane Democrats and the fiscally conservative Republicans could get together and form a new party and let the identity Democrats and the social Republicans fight it out on their own. When you listen to the Republicans talk about core fiscal principals and self reliance they make so much sense. And then folks like Rick Santorm go on stage and fuck everything up.




By retrospooty on 8/29/2012 3:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
+1

Absolutely.


RE: Every time I see stuff like this I cringe
By alphadogg on 8/30/2012 8:41:32 AM , Rating: 2

Hear, hear. We need a new, centrist party. Not just more extremist parties like the Libertarians...


By Moishe on 8/30/2012 4:10:22 PM , Rating: 2
Centrist... in all things? Each party has some valid centrist points, and each party has some whack-o points. Good luck defining and differentiating a centrist party.

Find a list of things that "most" people agree on and you'll be a millionaire. All if takes is one overly-sensitive, whiney-ass to ruin a good consensus, and the country is FULL of pussies who are too immature to even allow other people to disagree.


Corret me if I'm wrong...
By Silvio on 8/29/2012 3:06:59 PM , Rating: 3
But isn't the adult industry something like a 10 billion dollar business? I've this strange sensation Republicans will find a fight ahead of them if they start trying to enforce these laws.




RE: Corret me if I'm wrong...
By Azethoth on 8/29/2012 4:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong. It is much higher than that.


They protesteth too much
By Motoman on 8/29/2012 2:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
...go and see what the business is like in the Tampa area titty bars during the convention.

And just like when the Promise Keepers were in town, there's a nice bump in business for the naughty industry.

All these dipsh1ts will publicly proclaim that such things are dirty and inappropriate for our society, while they themselves partake of as much of it as they think they can get away with.

STFU and GTFO.




RE: They protesteth too much
By theapparition on 8/29/2012 3:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
It's a well known fact that Tampa has the highest density of adult establishments in the entire US.

I was wondering how they'd be faring. Not surprised.


By dbeers on 8/29/2012 2:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
Any law that does not clearly define the offense should never be enforced. The "Community Standards" definition is BS. With it, it is completely up to interpretation of what breaking the law is, just like the FCC that can fine stations for content, but will never clearly say what can or can't be said, leaving way too much gray area. Community standards may have been more fitting before the age of the internet, but we are now a global community with no set borders.

This is one of the reasons the Republicans will always turn off a lot of people in the middle, just like the Meese commission's war on porn back in the 80's under Reagan. Concentrate on things that matter, and raise your kids right. Go after child porn, but let everyone else alone unless you can give us a black and white rules of conduct about what's allowed and what isn't.




By Motoman on 8/29/2012 2:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
Community standards?

Porn is the biggest industry on the internet. Ergo, the "community" is all about porn.

Therefore, all websites should include porn.


Separation of Church and State
By zixin on 8/30/2012 12:25:11 AM , Rating: 2
"In the unlikelihood of a true U.S. ban on porn, it would join only a handful of nations, such as Iran, that have outlawed porn for religious reasons." Perfect. GOP has got too much religion infused in their ideology that they are in danger of making a national religion and thus violating the US Constitution.




RE: Separation of Church and State
By woody1 on 8/30/2012 5:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
The right wing loves the Constitution. Especially the original version which allows only white men to vote. Their dream Constitution would create state religion and roll back freedoms for women and minorities.

If they could get what they want, the US would look a lot like Iran.


easy choice
By stardude692001 on 8/30/2012 1:17:47 AM , Rating: 2
The day porn is banned is the day I put down my mouse and pick up my rifle.




RE: easy choice
By Mitch101 on 8/30/2012 8:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
Time to sing the national anthem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_DXgGuJG34


The party
By DrApop on 8/30/2012 9:58:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well so much for the party that wants to preserve individual liberties and happiness and reduce government intervention in the lives of people.




RE: The party
By woody1 on 8/30/2012 5:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, and the strip club business is always booming when the Republican Convention is in town!


Campaign contributions?
By BigEdMan on 8/29/2012 3:38:08 PM , Rating: 3
Porn doesn't kill people. It's the people who go out instead of staying home and watching porn who kill people. Perhaps we can ban Girl Scout cookies. I was almost killed on my way home from picking up Girl Scout cookies once. If Girl Scout cookies were illegal I would've been at home safe and sound. But no I was injured and missed work which took away from the GDP. Porn on the other hand accounts for quite a bit of the the GPD since it's one of the few things still made in the USA.

Sounds like the Republicans are rattling their sabers because the porn industry has been in decline and can afford huge contributions they longer. Everything is more acceptable when accompanied by huge campaign contributions it would seem.




I find it hilarous...
By greggles on 8/29/2012 2:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
The individuals who don't realize the size and scope of the internet, and the collective power of the individuals who call it home. Whether it be banning porn, cat photos, or meme's...they are just throwing buckets.

It's awful to say, but I'm glad humankind is mortal.




By Azethoth on 8/29/2012 4:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, why?




...
By MasterBlaster7 on 8/29/2012 6:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
You can take our lives. But you will never take our internet porn!




Imagine the comments section...
By tayb on 8/29/2012 10:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine the comments section if this "non-binding stance" was from the Democratic party for something such as increasing gun regulation. Just imagine the shit fest. Instead we get a competition to see who the biggest hypocrite on the site.




Oh NO.
By rippleyaliens on 8/29/2012 11:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
How will i teach the new ladies, on HOW TO DO This, and If you can do that=Marriage.. More importantly, if you do THIS.. Then yes i will buy you a 2c Diamond Ring..
BUT if you cannot do this.. WELL .. Nice Knowing you....




By superstition on 8/29/2012 11:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
A study found that the "red" state are the biggest consumers of porn, with Utah leading the pack.




Republican Porn
By digitalbuda on 8/30/2012 2:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
How'd I know
By FITCamaro on 8/30/2012 7:47:05 AM , Rating: 2
That Jason would find a way to take a shot directly at Republicans during the convention.




it's unsafe
By Captain Awesome on 8/30/2012 9:22:22 AM , Rating: 2
I've been watching porn for almost two decades now, and I noticed I've started to go blind. Hopefully they don't just ban porn, but also force the producers to make audio versions or have voice-overs giving you a play by play.




Always dissing the Republicans
By The Jedi on 8/30/2012 5:43:48 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody's going to freaking ban porn. The Communications Decency Act was here and gone. Just another sensationalist Mick article.




Canada
By unplug on 8/30/2012 10:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
Canada will become red light proxy district.




Maybe Dailytech
By Wererat on 8/30/2012 11:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
could manage to just keep up on technology news; whether they report on Ds or Rs, Romney or Obama, they're not doing a very good job of it, and it's not "Daily" or "Tech."

If I have to read past the pseudo-political "news" to find info on cars, tablets, and PCs, I'll look elsewhere.




f-u
By SPOOOK on 9/1/2012 4:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
go to hell, you politicians are corrept liars there is no definition of obscene its just made up lies by phony judges
the usa is the most corrept country in the world




Jason Mick
By VelociRapture on 9/3/2012 2:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
Jason,

Thank you for all your work and trying to keep people informed.

I think the people that are here that pick on you should, if unsatisfied, man up, stop whining, stop reading your articles, and start their own site - anything else is just useless noise.

Also, on the occasion a mistake is made, they might want to remember that they themselves are sure as hell not perfect, but they have every opportunity to prove so on their own site.




"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki