Big P13 said:
hahahahahhahaha damn man me2
Porn Causes Brain Damage
- Thread starter kaos217
- Start date
hahahahahhahaha damn man me2
BNF
Ex-SuperMod
There are some funny comments, but taking this topic and the American anti-porn lightly is a huge mistake.
I believe, that if it were not for the terror attacks and all of the subsequent events, that the US today would have been a far more repressive place than it is today. The right wing has been completely and totally overtaken by evangelical, radical Christians and the freedoms that most citizens enjoy are often dead against radical Christian beliefs. (Porn, alcohol, abortion (that is essentially gone in 5 years), gay rights....)
Science has long been hijacked by a group in an effort to prove or enforce change.
This is no laughing matter, imo. Another Republican president, without the "war on terror" as his public and private agenda, will almost certainly make (or try or begin the process of) sweeping changes to the doctrine of US laws from the community level (the infamous "community standards") up to the federal level - changes in line with radical, fundamentalist Christian beliefs. The current administration has given plenty of lip service to the groups that fund it, but it has also stocked the courts with it's own judge appointments. Their effect will be seen as the years continue.
I believe, that if it were not for the terror attacks and all of the subsequent events, that the US today would have been a far more repressive place than it is today. The right wing has been completely and totally overtaken by evangelical, radical Christians and the freedoms that most citizens enjoy are often dead against radical Christian beliefs. (Porn, alcohol, abortion (that is essentially gone in 5 years), gay rights....)
Science has long been hijacked by a group in an effort to prove or enforce change.
This is no laughing matter, imo. Another Republican president, without the "war on terror" as his public and private agenda, will almost certainly make (or try or begin the process of) sweeping changes to the doctrine of US laws from the community level (the infamous "community standards") up to the federal level - changes in line with radical, fundamentalist Christian beliefs. The current administration has given plenty of lip service to the groups that fund it, but it has also stocked the courts with it's own judge appointments. Their effect will be seen as the years continue.
I agree with Fox's view. Without the war on terror, the conservative government wouldn't have been able to shame people into feeling unpatriotic when they question what the government is doing as they slowly erase our rights in the name of national security. With the exception of that one small fact I think everything else you said, BNF, is totally true.
member2686
Banned
:wtf: How in the world did we go from some slanted news story to the "war on terror?" Conservatives have been trying to restrict porn for ages. This has nothing to do with Bush and Hussein and all that nonsense.
I understand what some of you are saying, but Conservatism combined with religious zeal has been around for a very long time and one of its targets has ALWAYS been porn. It's part of their right-wing Christian agenda and pretty much always has been. Sure, we have a "compassionate" (my ass) Conservative President of the USA NOW, but the anti-porn movement, IMO, has nothing to do with Islamic jihad/terrorism and our fight to end it.
To assert that Bush started a war with Iraq to distract Americans while his administration slipped through a bunch of Conservative legislation and made it law is absurd. The Senate and the House are still here working and addressing the bills that are attempted to be made into law, and there's plenty of partisanship and vehement fighting over pending legislation.
The religious conservatives of the USA, regardless of their respective religions, have always pushed to get rid of porn.
The thread here, I thought, was more at how news media was being manipulated or being biased. Everyone pretty much knows that most conservatives dislike porn (or at least they SAY they dislike it).
That's a given...
:2 cents: :hatsoff:
I understand what some of you are saying, but Conservatism combined with religious zeal has been around for a very long time and one of its targets has ALWAYS been porn. It's part of their right-wing Christian agenda and pretty much always has been. Sure, we have a "compassionate" (my ass) Conservative President of the USA NOW, but the anti-porn movement, IMO, has nothing to do with Islamic jihad/terrorism and our fight to end it.
To assert that Bush started a war with Iraq to distract Americans while his administration slipped through a bunch of Conservative legislation and made it law is absurd. The Senate and the House are still here working and addressing the bills that are attempted to be made into law, and there's plenty of partisanship and vehement fighting over pending legislation.
The religious conservatives of the USA, regardless of their respective religions, have always pushed to get rid of porn.
The thread here, I thought, was more at how news media was being manipulated or being biased. Everyone pretty much knows that most conservatives dislike porn (or at least they SAY they dislike it).
That's a given...
:2 cents: :hatsoff:
Nightfly said:
:wtf: indeed. I don't know where you got the idea that anyone is asserting that Bush started a war in order to pass a lot of conservative legislation, you've added 2+2 and gotten 10 somehow there. What was being said is that because of the attacks on the U.S. unusually strong patriotic feelings were stirred withing the country, and those feelings made the American people more willing to go along with what the government, particularly the Bush administration said needed to be done. It therefore made it easier for all of this conservative legislation to be passed because we were made to feel that we were unpatriotic if we questioned it's validity.
As for how we made the jump to the war on terrorism, that's because of BNF's statements regaurding the U.S.'s swing to the right this decade, and a few people's attempts at explaining how they believe this occurred. :glugglug:
BNF
Ex-SuperMod
'Fly (and others), my point is that any administration comes into office (in any Western democracy) with an agenda. The agenda is hammered out during the party nomination and electoral process - promises to the money men are made at that time to secure the gears and wheels turn to get the coffers full. It is the classic image of a backroom deal.
The terror attacks on Sept 11 caught the national decision makers off guard/by surprise. Suddenly, the unthinkable happened and both the 4 year agenda and the 8 year agenda needed to be rethought. The (apparent) fact that war with Iraq was going to happen anyway (with or w/o the terror attacks) just created more furvor. (Italians may own the word vendetta but clearly adminstrations past and present can also practice it.)
The war on terror, imo, indisputabley sidetracked the fundamentalist agenda. It would have been perhaps the most absurd and wreckless act of any administration had the re-evaluation (redesign is certainly not the right word) of nation security not taken precident.
The reason I do not believe that the WoT is also a smokescreen to fundamentalist restrictions, is simply based on the fact that there are only so many minutes in a day, and so many hours in an administration. The flagrent mismanagement and exceedingly bad preparation for the war in Iraq has keep your bureaucrats busy enough. If you (citizens) are lucky, the appointments will be the strongest iron fist legacy leftover. (If you do disagree with my idea of a simple lack of time, then where is the modern Meese Commission? The articles and press are largely being kept afloat by private interests, imo, angered by the lack of attention that they and other special interests were promised.)
The terror attacks on Sept 11 caught the national decision makers off guard/by surprise. Suddenly, the unthinkable happened and both the 4 year agenda and the 8 year agenda needed to be rethought. The (apparent) fact that war with Iraq was going to happen anyway (with or w/o the terror attacks) just created more furvor. (Italians may own the word vendetta but clearly adminstrations past and present can also practice it.)
The war on terror, imo, indisputabley sidetracked the fundamentalist agenda. It would have been perhaps the most absurd and wreckless act of any administration had the re-evaluation (redesign is certainly not the right word) of nation security not taken precident.
The reason I do not believe that the WoT is also a smokescreen to fundamentalist restrictions, is simply based on the fact that there are only so many minutes in a day, and so many hours in an administration. The flagrent mismanagement and exceedingly bad preparation for the war in Iraq has keep your bureaucrats busy enough. If you (citizens) are lucky, the appointments will be the strongest iron fist legacy leftover. (If you do disagree with my idea of a simple lack of time, then where is the modern Meese Commission? The articles and press are largely being kept afloat by private interests, imo, angered by the lack of attention that they and other special interests were promised.)
member2686
Banned
Perhaps I misunderstood your assertions, BGF (lol new name 
). I thought that what you said was that the "WoT" was somehow Bush trying to veil an overhaul of American morality and taxes, etc. through slithery-snake legislation because people would be too distracted to keep up with what was going on here in the USA as well. That notion, to me, felt absurd.
Ciao, amico! :nanner: :hatsoff:
). I thought that what you said was that the "WoT" was somehow Bush trying to veil an overhaul of American morality and taxes, etc. through slithery-snake legislation because people would be too distracted to keep up with what was going on here in the USA as well. That notion, to me, felt absurd.Ciao, amico! :nanner: :hatsoff:
