Bush Admin War on Porn Listed Above Civil Rights

page: 1
0

log in

join
joi

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Looking for a Few Good FBI Men TO Fight Porn



The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.



"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   


But Gonzales endorses the rationale of predecessor Meese: that adult pornography is a threat to families and children. Christian conservatives, long skeptical of Gonzales, greeted the pornography initiative with what the Family Research Council called "a growing sense of confidence in our new attorney general."


This just cracks me up! It's so blatantly 'religion in government'! But this administration is doing everything blatantly these days and getting away with it.


So, the Christian Conservatives didn't like Gonzales until he came out against the nasty, sinful, naked people and now, they love him!


I'd love to hear exactly how pornography is a threat to families and children:

Ooohhh! Run! It's a dangerous naked body! Haven't you heard? Sex is a filthy, nasty, horrible practice and should be saved for the one you love!



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I am a good ol' Christian Conservative Libertarian and this sounds rediculous to me.

I certainly think we have more important things to worry about, but hey, maybe Delay's right in that there is no more "fat to cut from the budget".




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Things like this running behind the more important issue of the country are the dangerous doings that we need to give more attention.

While the nation is struggling with devastation and war, lack of money and financial hardship.

"Other groups" not in the financial business like "Corporations" are taking advantage and reaping their share of the government and infiltrating the government under the blanket of "For the good of the nation and under the will of God"

Religious fundamentalist are getting into the government via states first, while the main people in Washington belongs to the corporate power.

Who is more dangerous? the ones you can see or what is just working through cementing their net starting with the individual state.

Everybody has an Agenda, and Gonzales has a very nice record on his interpretation of what and how civil rights are out to be played and to who they should benefit.

This is not a surprised it was one of the problems brought up prior to his appointment.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Jethro you posted:

"I am a good ol' Christian Conservative Libertarian and this sounds rediculous to me.

I certainly think we have more important things to worry about, but hey, maybe Delay's right in that there is no more "fat to cut from the budget".


I think this is rediculous too. It is obviously a type of paranoia. If you really believe the nation is struggling with all this stuff you dont worry about this line of thinking at all.

Furthermore ..this is not something the Federal Government needs to be worried about. This is something that should be handled at the State and Local levels. Remember that stuff about States Rights. This is a States Rights issue not a Federal Issue. It should also be handled down at the local levels..where it really counts.

However...never ...never ...under any circumstances..think logically and reasonably....always think about issues.... like this at a Federal level with histronics and emotions. Never ..never ...do this at a local or state level where it really counts. This is textbook sophism...by intelligentsia.
this gaurantees you constantly chase a placebo and never the real issues.

Thanks,
Orangetom.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Look, i can understand going after child pornography and other things just as bad... however porn that's made with consenting adults, for adults?

C'mon!


As long as everyone is of age and willing i say leave it be. There must be more pressing issues we could be spending our money and time on.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
This is obvious pandering to the "religious right" and the neocons trying to shore up their eroding base of conservatives. Finally the conservatives have realized that the current admimistration are only "lipstick" conservative.

Also the homophopic right has seen beneath the thin veneer of "machismo" of the neocons and they don't like what they see.

Thus the diversions to attempt to hide the fact that the neocons are grasping for an issue that will slow down their fragmentation and ultimite meltdown.

Watch the news shows; all the consertavives look like deer caught in the headlights. My prediction for the next phony diversionary issue: heathen science fiction and fantasy like H. Potter when they realize even conservtive Christians have a little stash of naughty, naughty.



[edit on 21-9-2005 by whaaa]



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I'd love to hear the rationale that sex is bad or in some way dangerous.

I'm not talking about the abuse and/or abusive coercion of children or adults, there's plenty of 'law' around already dealing with that stuff, quite rightly.

I can go along with the idea that it is preferable that children should be kept from knowing the full details of sex in their early years (although I also disagree with the idea that children are somehow completely 'sexless' and that any exposure to sex at all will have them either falling down dead with shock or ruined, perverted and corrupted forever.

But since when was there any public consultation, discussion and consensus on the loopy underlying theme to all this that adult people enjoying sex and being filmed for the enjoyment of others is somehow 'bad'?

The hypocrisy regarding this is stunning. Who is denying that besides the almost universal basic perennial adolescent 'solo' interests that so much of porn is used to provoke nothing more than enjoyable fantasy and add to the being 'turned on' of perfectly 'normal' adult couples.

It seems to me that sexual repression is a fairly regular ingredient to intollerant neo-fascist states.
These guys rely on embarrassment to stop people speaking out against this kind of stupidity.

It's your tax $ and your gov's priorities.

As a Brit we have a different class of 'rules' on this altogether; porn is very easily available but no-one wants to ever mention it.
Kind of suits the Brit mentality.



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   
This is as re-DONK-ulous as arresting someone for parking left-of-curb while there's a brutal murder going on 10 feet away.

At least nobody will be forced to look at porn while they are in church, since that's such a rampant problem these days.

Hmmmm, I wonder if they will be as aggressive on straight/girl-on-girl porn as they're going to be on the "homo-gay" porn, or will they use the same double standard here too? You know, since I can't be a "gay" in public, my porn is all I've got!!!!! What else are they going to take from me?

If porn is what our elected officials are worried about - then so much for the separation of church and state.

whatever . . .



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
What about Bush's dinner with a porn star?

I'm against porn myself...but the GOP has no problem with being hypocritical.





top topics
 
0

log in

join