Anti-Bush Ad going around the adult industry

[Halx]

http://www.alsscan.com/graphics/vote...difference.jpg
I'm not hotlinking it because it's huge.

I would like your opinion on this. Many Bush supporters have told me that despite the intentions of the administration, it is not likely that they could ever get the laws to stretch this far. I would say the ad is a bit alarmist, but for myself, I constantly fret for my personal freedoms under this bible-humping administration.

I wont bring other issues into the mix, but securing my freedom to do as I please, as a human being who evolved through time to become who I am today, is far more important to me than the banner issue of the entire election. Part of my reasoning is because I don't even believe that the banner issue is as big of a deal/threat as everyone is making it out to be. My concern is in upholding my own freedoms.

[Kalibah]

Damm I was hoping they would err have a picture similar to what Whoopie Goldberg said

[SirSeymour]

I equate the moves of some to limit the Adult industry as very similar to Prohibition in the 20s.

Great Article on the Failure of Prohibition with comparisons to modern equivalants.

Even though there is concern in some quarters about the possible hyperconservative nature of the Supreme Court by the end of a possible second Bush term, I don't believe it will go that far. The lessons of the past are just too obvious for us to repeat them. Even many of those who did not like many of today's vices (porn, gambling, adult clubs, etc) recognize that to outlaw them will only drive the industries underground and thus increase crime.

On ABC Primetime last night they revealed the data gathered in a new sex survey run by the ABC Polling department. According to the results of that poll 30% of Americans have made use of adult videos to enhance their sex life. For those of you counting at home, that is somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 people. A significant market to profit from and likely worth the chance of getting caught.

I cannot see law enforcement agencies supporting this idea either. Consider the amount of increased law enforcment to go with new laws like this and thus the necessary increase in budgets. In short, while I see groups out there who will make the attempt, I do not see much success for them in the future.

[Halx]

Yes, I totally feel you Seymour. Despite the futility of the proposition, however, the general feel is that we still have ground to gain to excercise true freedom and the current administration is doing what it can to impede that.

[cthulu23]

Considering that John Ashcroft covered the bare breast of the status of Lady Justice in the capitol, it's pretty clear that he probably doesn't feel too warmly towards pornography. It was Reagan that gave us the Meese Commision and their discredited attempt to link porn to crime.

The allegations about Scalia's stance on the first amendment as it pertains to porn look to be true. Here are some quotes from his dissenting opinion in the the US V. Playboy

“The deliberate representation of petitioner’s publications as erotically arousing . . . stimulate[s] the reader to accept them as prurient; he looks for titillation, not for saving intellectual content.” Id., at 470. Thus, a business that “(1) offer[s] … hardcore sexual material, (2) as a constant and intentional objective of [its] business, [and] (3) seek[s] to promote it as such” finds no sanctuary in the First Amendment.

Since the Government is entirely free to block these transmissions, it may certainly take the less drastic step of dictating how, and during what times, they may occur.

Given the hstory of the Bush administration as well as the fundamentalist Christianity that seems to permeate it, they are definitely more likely to interfere with or prosecute pornographers. Whether you consider this a bad thing probably depends on whether or not you think that the First Amendment applies to porn or not.

I seriously doubt that this will have any discernible effect on the election, though, so conservative "outrage" will probably be minimal.

[flstf]

The extreme religious right part of the Repubicans and the extreme liberal left part of the Democrats are both a danger to our freedoms.

I don't know which to fear most. One side wants to ban Hustler magazine for being lewd and the other side wants to ban Mark Twain for being politically incorrect. I think I read somewhere that Tom Sawyer and Catcher in the Rye were the most banned books in U.S. schools. One for using the word "fuck" and the other for using the word "nigger".

I'm sure they are only trying to protect us from ourselves. A pox on both their houses.

[Kalibah]

Originally Posted by flstf

The extreme religious right part of the Repubicans and the extreme liberal left part of the Democrats are both a danger to our freedoms.

I don't know which to fear most. One side wants to ban Hustler magazine for being lewd and the other side wants to ban Mark Twain for being politically incorrect. I think I read somewhere that Tom Sawyer and Catcher in the Rye were the most banned books in U.S. schools. One for using the word "fuck" and the other for using the word "nigger".

I'm sure they are only trying to protect us from ourselves. A pox on both their houses.

I wonder if reading mien Kampf at schools is okay now-adays?

[bingle]

Originally Posted by flstf

The extreme religious right part of the Repubicans and the extreme liberal left part of the Democrats are both a danger to our freedoms.

I don't know which to fear most. One side wants to ban Hustler magazine for being lewd and the other side wants to ban Mark Twain for being politically incorrect. I think I read somewhere that Tom Sawyer and Catcher in the Rye were the most banned books in U.S. schools. One for using the word "fuck" and the other for using the word "nigger".

I'm not sure how this became associated with liberals - most liberals I know are very concerned with free speech, and the ACLU, for example, is a favorite charity of the left. Especially the far left - the people I can see banning this are overly-sensitive suburban parents, not people dancing nude in San Francisco. The very far left is a big fan of Mark Twain, and a big fan of free speech - including the freedom to have kids read almost anything they want to.

Bingle

[mattevil]

reminds me of that pic of ashcroft composed entirely of porn photos.

[Ustwo]

People who don't understand the Republican party assume the majority are bible thumping members of the religious right. This isn't the case. Most are quite secular, and at best/worst (depending on your point of view) mildly religious CE type Christians. Hell all of my swinger friends are guess what, republican.

Nothing is going to happen to porn.

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

People who don't understand the Republican party assume the majority are bible thumping members of the religious right. This isn't the case. Most are quite secular, and at best/worst (depending on your point of view) mildly religious CE type Christians. Hell all of my swinger friends are guess what, republican.

Nothing is going to happen to porn.

Most Republicans are socially moderate but the "moral majority" types are very powerful within the party. People like Ashcroft or Meese before him would probably love to wipe out pornography. You can't deny that some Republicans have positioned themselves as enemies of porn.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by cthulu23

Most Republicans are socially moderate but the "moral majority" types are very powerful within the party. People like Ashcroft or Meese before him would probably love to wipe out pornography. You can't deny that some Republicans have positioned themselves as enemies of porn.

If it makes you feel better the 'evil demon' Ascroft is planning on stepping down if Bush is elected to a second term. You can all rest easy that things he never did to you won't be happening anymore.

[SirSeymour]

Originally Posted by Halx

Yes, I totally feel you Seymour. Despite the futility of the proposition, however, the general feel is that we still have ground to gain to excercise true freedom and the current administration is doing what it can to impede that.

Yes, this I totally agree with. Of course, I believe our personal rights/freedoms are fluid things that change on a regular basis, often in minor and unnoticed ways. We have reached a point where the granting of freedom for one may actually infringe on someone else's freedom. It is a difficult call.

The other thing to remember of the 3 members of the court who are real possibles to be replaced (assuming resignation and not an untimely death), two are conservative and one is liberal. The current make up of the court being what it is, this means that a major swing is likely. Justices have a way of turning out not as those nominated them expect too. Our history is littered with appointments who ended up making those who appointed them unhappy.

Another interesting note from the poll off of Primetime Live last night is that Republicans are more sexually happy than Democrates and I think more likely to watch porn but I will have to try to find confirmation of that last bit as I am not completely sure I remember hearing it. My mind might be adding things I want to believe.

This does not mean I am not concerned about this issue, however. More that I think we are still a ways from being in trouble over it.

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If it makes you feel better the 'evil demon' Ascroft is planning on stepping down if Bush is elected to a second term. You can all rest easy that things he never did to you won't be happening anymore.

I never used the term evil or demon so please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I'm glad to hear that Ashcroft will step down....he has defintiely been a liability to the Bush administration.

I didn't realize that events had to happen before I was allowed to worry about them. If that's the case, would you please all shut the fuck up about the damage that Kerry will cause?

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by cthulu23

I never used the term evil or demon so please refrain from putting words in my mouth. I'm glad to hear that Ashcroft will step down....he has defintiely been a liability to the Bush administration.

Ashcroft has been the 'evil demon' of the left since day one, so don't assume it was your mouth I was putting words into.

I didn't realize that events had to happen before I was allowed to worry about them. If that's the case, would you please all shut the fuck up about the damage that Kerry will cause?

If Kerry was in power for 4 years then yes I would, I can only go by his record, not what he will have done. Ashcroft has been there as a buggaboo of left wingers since the start, and guess what, nothing has happened. Hell there really isn't anything he COULD do, as unlike a liberal judge, he can't write laws. You would only have something to fear in Ashcroft if the law itself changed, which again he has no power to do.

He was just a manufactured bogeyman since it is a lot harder to demonize the likeable GWB.

[Flyguy]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If it makes you feel better the 'evil demon' Ascroft is planning on stepping down if Bush is elected to a second term. You can all rest easy that things he never did to you won't be happening anymore.

And Bush has a hard core liberal who disagrees with the far right waiting in line to take his place, right?

[flstf]

Originally Posted by bingle

I'm not sure how this became associated with liberals - most liberals I know are very concerned with free speech, and the ACLU, for example, is a favorite charity of the left. Especially the far left - the people I can see banning this are overly-sensitive suburban parents, not people dancing nude in San Francisco. The very far left is a big fan of Mark Twain, and a big fan of free speech - including the freedom to have kids read almost anything they want to.

Bingle

You may be right. I just assumed the political correctness nonsense was coming from the left. I assumed the right would not object to Mark Twain.

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

If Kerry was in power for 4 years then yes I would, I can only go by his record, not what he will have done. Ashcroft has been there as a buggaboo of left wingers since the start, and guess what, nothing has happened. Hell there really isn't anything he COULD do, as unlike a liberal judge, he can't write laws. You would only have something to fear in Ashcroft if the law itself changed, which again he has no power to do.

He was just a manufactured bogeyman since it is a lot harder to demonize the likeable GWB.

Ashcroft had a record before he came into the White House and it was one of far right ideology. He positions on gay rights, abortion, birth control, desegregation and a host of other issues marked him as a far right moral majority type. Why such an extreme individual would be nominated to attorney general is baffling to me but the opposition to him is understandable when seen in the light of his record.

As for what he got accomplished during his tenure as AG, I'd say that he deserves a share of the credit for the policy of secret arrests and "indefinite" detentions for "terror" suspects. Circumventing citizen's legal protections hardly seems like an admirable quality in an attorney general to me.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Flyguy

And Bush has a hard core liberal who disagrees with the far right waiting in line to take his place, right?

You mean someone like Janet Reno? She had a GREAT track record on personal freedoms don't you think? How many armed assaults has Aschroft done, and how many people have been killed in doing them with him in office? How many children killed in so doing?

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You mean someone like Janet Reno? She had a GREAT track record on personal freedoms don't you think? How many armed assaults has Aschroft done, and how many people have been killed in doing them with him in office? How many children killed in so doing?

That has absolutely nothing to do with his statement.

Janet Reno made some horrible decisions and probably shouldn't have been attorney general. Of course, neither should Ashcroft.

[aerozeppelin]

Getting back to topic, I think attacks on the adult industry are not out of the question should Bush win another term, especially if Ashcroft is attourney general again (though if Congress is close or if the Democrats take the senate, he has no chance of getting confirmed again, given how radical he has been). However, any attacks on porn would likely to be minor, because any major attack risks angering companies like Cox, Charter, Comcast, (insert cable/sateliliete company here), and most politicians don't like angering huge companies to please relatively small constituencies.

[artspartz]

I am voting for national security.I am voting for Bush.If our country is bombed to pieces we won't be looking at ANY bush,we won't be worried about porn when we have to worry about a suicide bomber visiting your favorite bar, pizzeria, or mall.I see no proof by their record that democrats or liberals will take the War on Terror seriously.
[B][I]But I still love you man. peace out , hu aa, whoo hoo

[ARTelevision]

I'm confident that pornography will continue to be the vastly successful enterprise it is during a second Bush Presidency. I'd be interested if anyone here has actually had any of their personal freedoms lost to any significant degree during the past four years as a result of any new initiatives that are supposedly aimed at limiting our personal freedoms. IMO, it just isn't something to worry too much about when compared to national security issues or economic realities.

[jonjon42]

artspartz, Give me liberty or give me death is how the phrase goes I believe

now really...what is the point of having a secure country if we don't have our freedoms? Yes, with freedom always come some risk, but that is assumed. The Safest society to live in would be a police state, but I don't see (many) people clammering to create one (well, their is the Patriot act...but that's another issue)

Now back to the main issue. I think that Bush is going to want to keep his christian coalition base happy. So, with that in mind I think he will try to limit or attack the porn industry.

[onetime2]

Even in the face of the most recent AIDS scare in the porn industry there has been little to no curtailing of the industry by the government. As Art has communicated, there are very few people who have felt anything close to a diminishing of their rights. In fact, the worst that could happen under any Congress and Administration is a temporary diminishment of freedoms as there is still that pesky Supreme Court to make challenges to. And then, should that even fail, there is always the people of the country itself who can be appealed to force representatives to change the laws.

The big bad government conspiracy to strip people of their rights would have to be the most far reaching ever to exist in the history of the world. But then, of course, it wouldn't be conspiracy, it would be Democracy.

[mrdarcy]

I for one am disturbed by the adult industries blatant campaign against bush.

Pubic hair is much more sexy than the plucked chicken look that the industry is pushing.

I see nothing wrong at all with a little bush. Trim it how you want, but don't do away with it entirely.

[cthulu23]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

I'm confident that pornography will continue to be the vastly successful enterprise it is during a second Bush Presidency. I'd be interested if anyone here has actually had any of their personal freedoms lost to any significant degree during the past four years as a result of any new initiatives that are supposedly aimed at limiting our personal freedoms. IMO, it just isn't something to worry too much about when compared to national security issues or economic realities.

I would say that the residents of Camp Xray have had their freedoms curtailed to a very significant degree.

[Tophat665]

You know, I am beginning not to like this Son of Bush.

[Mephisto2]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

People who don't understand the Republican party assume the majority are bible thumping members of the religious right. This isn't the case. Most are quite secular, and at best/worst (depending on your point of view) mildly religious CE type Christians. Hell all of my swinger friends are guess what, republican.

I couldn't agree with you more Ustwo. Far too often the Republicans and Republican supporters are painted as some kind of fanatical, anti-freedom, war-mongering rabid mob.

I would say that the majority of them are intelligent men and women who are voting or supporting politics in which they believe.

The problem, Ustwo, is that you seem to believe the opposite is true of Democrats. Do you honestly believe that the Democrats and Democrat supporters are actually dangerous?

The thing is, the Democrats and Republicans do differ when it comes to things like the adult industry. Look at the clamp down on the networks over a simple bare breast! For goodness sake!

Nothing is going to happen to porn.

Well, if Ashcroft is given another term as AG, then I honestly believe the clampdown will continue. What is more, your personal rights and freedoms (which seem to be held so dear by so many Americans) will continue to be erroded.


Mr Mephisto

[OpieCunningham]

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

I'm confident that pornography will continue to be the vastly successful enterprise it is during a second Bush Presidency. I'd be interested if anyone here has actually had any of their personal freedoms lost to any significant degree during the past four years as a result of any new initiatives that are supposedly aimed at limiting our personal freedoms. IMO, it just isn't something to worry too much about when compared to national security issues or economic realities.

I guess the question then becomes:

Have you been killed by a terrorist since 9/11 or have you been arrested due to trumped charges based on legislation like the Patriot Act and/or the Ashcroftian method of evaluating the letter of the law?

I suspect very few would answer yes to either option. But there are far more who have had to deal with the latter.

Now, economic troubles? Yeah. That trumps national security and personal rights by a vast margin.


Also - can anyone point me to numbers on the makeup of the Republican party? My impression is that it is equally split between stringent social conservatives (whom I would call fundamentalists) and stringent fiscal conservatives (whom I would call libertarians)?

[madsenj37]

I heard a panel of adult stars including Tera Patrick, her husband, Violet Blue, other stars and some guys who own companies like teen tryouts and and the bunny ranch speak about this saturday at the exotic erotic ball exposition (not the ball) last saturday. All they did was bad mouth Bush, corpartions and small business start ups.