Conservatives on r.a.m.e.
CLEARAND10
>group, which they would just as well outlaw if they ruled the
>country.
So, you start off with an admission that you know nothing of the
conservative movement. I guess we all "look the same" to you.
Believe it or not there is a HUGE movement within conservatism that is
libertarian on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters. I'm included
in that group. The nutcake fringe you're worried about is a vocal minority.
Personally, I'd be more concerned about the lunatic left fringe. You
know, the ones who equate all sex with rape. These are the same ones that
tried twist the law in Minessota a few years back in order to charge
publications like Playboy and Penthouse with sexual harassment and the models
with prostitution.
----------------------------
"If it suddenly ended tomorrow I could somehow adjust to the fall, good
times and riches and son-of-a-bitches I've seen more than I can recall."
J. Buffett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
Andiamo
may be more Libertarian. Or, as in my case, a fiscal conservative (yes...I
do not think the GOVT should 'pay' people to lay around on their ass all
day) and a social moderate. Extreme right-wingers are intolorant to any
position but their own. But the same is true of extreme left-wingers ( Al
Gore is a prime example). The people here on RAME are middle-of-the-road as
far as I can see. After all we love porno...which is definitely not a
right-wing plank.....
eppw...@anon.nymserver.com wrote in article <rame.904629611p3904@bash>...
> I have no idea why right wing conservatives would contribute to this
> group, which they would just as well outlaw if they ruled the
> country. In any event, if you've seen Robert Bork on TV lately,
> it's quite obvious he is now full fledged lunatic fringe. Just
> imagine him on the Court. One's sphincters tighten.
>
> By the way, I read where Rudy Guiliani states he will go into
> Show World in NYC again and again to check compliance with the code.
> And he says he will do it forever and ever. Wrong Rudy. Anthony
> Comstock and Fiorelly LaGuardia tried to clean up NY for decades,
> and it always came back dirtier and more depraved than ever. As far
> as stopping porn is concerned, Guiliani has all the signficance of
> a pimple on the ass of an elephant.
Dor...@camel19.mindspring.com
>>I have no idea why right wing conservatives would contribute to this
>>group, which they would just as well outlaw if they ruled the
>>country.
>
> So, you start off with an admission that you know nothing of the
>conservative movement. I guess we all "look the same" to you.
> Believe it or not there is a HUGE movement within conservatism that is
>libertarian on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters. I'm included
>in that group. The nutcake fringe you're worried about is a vocal minority.
> Personally, I'd be more concerned about the lunatic left fringe. You
>know, the ones who equate all sex with rape. These are the same ones that
>tried twist the law in Minessota a few years back in order to charge
>publications like Playboy and Penthouse with sexual harassment and the models
>with prostitution.
Nothing else needs to be added to your response except to include my
personal habits:
I listen to Howard Stern in the morning,
switch channels to Dr. Laura and finally Rush. (I'm in my car a lot)
When I get home I check RAME and ACME and some binary groups, rent
porn movies, and on some weekends I go to strip clubs.
I see no conflict here except Dr. Laura is a little hard to swallow
much of the time.
It's the liberals who want to tell you whether or not you can smoke
(even in your own car) and what type of car to drive. It was Tipper
Gore who spearheaded the censorship of music which resulted in labels
several years ago.
Personally, I am conservative because I am sick of having 40% of my
income redistributed to people who haven't earned it.
I also believe, as many conservatives do, that what consensual adults
do in private is their own business so long as it doesn't harm anyone.
While the originator of this thread is busy blindly stereotyping
conservatives, he should investigate how his liberal friends vote on
anything regarding adult businesses.
Like Rush says, "You must have the courage to believe the truth, even
if it requires you to change your thinking."
Philip Townsend Hitchcock
> >I have no idea why right wing conservatives would contribute to this
> >group, which they would just as well outlaw if they ruled the country.
>
> So, you start off with an admission that you know nothing of the
> conservative movement. I guess we all "look the same" to you.
you know, I can't fault the original poster for their assumption.
While those of us involved in politics realize (or desperately
hope) that those socially repressed zealots are indeed the minority
as we claim, they are nonetheless loud as hell and publicly
taking over the operations of much Republican party machinery.
In Virginia, though Sen John Warner is still quite popular among
the electorate, I was interviewed on TV for my bravado in
sporting pro-Warner stickers at a Republican party convention
a few years ago since he was regarded as a traitor for failing
to support scary lunatic Ollie North. While I object to much
of Warner's insufficiently pro-choice actions, he's still a lot
better than most alternatives and not a bad fellow to hang
out with. Pat Robertson needs to form his own party and,
ideally, take it to a remote island far away from me.
> Believe it or not there is a HUGE movement within conservatism that is
> libertarian on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters. I'm included
> in that group. The nutcake fringe you're worried about is a vocal minority.
how will this HUGE movement show itself when the channels are
largely censored by the religious crazies? I'm not being critical, I
simply want to know so I can help. I consider myself liibertarian,
I think, though I don't know what to do about guns or what I consider
irresponsible procreation (stupid people making multiple stupid
people while the mentally advanced population decreases - but
then that sounds like liberal utopian totalitarian thinking).
> Personally, I'd be more concerned about the lunatic left fringe. You
> know, the ones who equate all sex with rape. These are the same ones that
> tried twist the law in Minessota a few years back in order to charge
> publications like Playboy and Penthouse with sexual harassment and the models
> with prostitution.
the MacDworkinites.... a sad lot indeed. While I must defend their
right to their opinion, it's a little like defending a KKK march outside
of an NAACP meeting.
My biggest question is how do we educate people so they can
make choices? Not necessarily the "right" choices (but then
whose definition of "right" would we use?), but how to help
people learn how to get in touch with themselves to make
their choices for themselves and not make their choices to
satisfy an external, often unacknowledged, force?
You know, what is now called Conservative used to be called
Liberal 100 years ago. Republicans around here crow about
Jeffersonian (like Thomas) Replicanism yet they want to break
the church/state separation TJ was so attached to and adamant
about.
In a world of well-rounded people, we need to exercise our
political selves to demonstrate our beliefs and be included in
whatever census says what the "population" really believes.
Mike Ross (aka MCR, who I know personally and is a great
guy, socially effervescent and professionally astoundingly
astute and well-respected) and Kat Sunlove (who I don't know,
but I like her photo -wrongdirectiongoback- and she also
seems to be a respectable force for good in Sacramento) are
on the front lines fighting our fights for us.
We need to get out of the shadows and stand in the middle
of the streets professing our freedom beliefs, including the
freedom to not like porn.
I frankly feel that sexual dysfunction resulting from repressive
upbringings should be quantified in terms of lost GNP, just
like the cost of alcohol/tobacco/drug use/abuse.
Additional aside: my state delegate, who was recently exposed
as having led some training sessions at a Christian Coalition
gathering, was giving me a pep talk a few months ago as I was
wrestling with some serious financial/personal problems. One of
his exhortations in favor of my continuing to live (rather than suicide)
was "and think of the movies (referring to my Christi Lake's
Fan Fuxxx Two appearance) you have yet to make."
Strange bedfolk sometimes.
And then Guiliani (who I e-mailed, thanks to this group)
masquerades as a moderate Republican when he is actually
a Totalitarian, I get really confused.
Don't try to figure it out, just do what's in front of you or else
you'll be overwhelmed by the enormity and contradiction.
--
Philip Townsend Hitchcock / Hitchcock & Company, Inc.
158 Culpeper Street, Warrenton, Virginia 20186-3220
home/office (540) 349-1020 / fax (540) 349-4670
mailto:pth...@mnsinc.com / date of birth 6/5/53
Highland '67 / Cranbrook '71 / Univ of Denver '75
a director of IAEA- http://www.smnews.com/iaea/1.htm
see my video debut in "Christi Lake's Fan Fuxxx Two"
"Philip...nothing-weird-but-nicely-enthusiastic one-
on-one action." from AVN Buyers Guide 1998, page 203
http://www.christilake.com/merchandise/fanfuxxx02.jpg
http://www.christilake.com/merchandise/fanfuxxx02b.jpg
Dc81...@aol.com
> know, the ones who equate all sex with rape. These are the same ones that
> tried twist the law in Minessota a few years back in order to charge
> publications like Playboy and Penthouse with sexual harassment and the models
> with prostitution.
So would I! Not to mention all the radical animal rights snots, goofey
enviro- nuts, we have to listen to crazies equate consenual sexual
intercourse with rape. Personally, I would rather hang out with people who
are considered sexist,racist,"homophobic" (whatever that means) than a bunch
of PC morons. I'll take Pat Robertson over Patty Ireland any day!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Eric Dew
>
>Personally, I am conservative because I am sick of having 40% of my
>income redistributed to people who haven't earned it.
Sorry for the PC rant here, but....
The part of that 40% that gets distributed to people who didn't earn it (i.e.,
I presume you mean welfare folks) is minimal. The bulk of it, as you can
see at the back of any IRS booklet, goes to defense and administration of
the government.
Eh, maybe you're right. Those folks didn't earn it either.
>
>I also believe, as many conservatives do, that what consensual adults
>do in private is their own business so long as it doesn't harm anyone.
>While the originator of this thread is busy blindly stereotyping
>conservatives, he should investigate how his liberal friends vote on
>anything regarding adult businesses.
>
Stereotypes, as stereotypes go, aren't created in a vacuum. They were
created because there were some factual incidences which link the group
with the type (except possibly the stereotype that black men rape white
women which was a complete hoax). Like it or not, the Jerry Falwells and
the Pat Robertsons ARE lumped with the conservatives. Until you move to
the libertarian stance (then, you are unfortunately grouped with the
wackos like Lyndon LaRouche) you will have that Falwell-albatross hanging
on your neck.
Liberals are also liberally (hah!) stereotyped, although given the choice
of which group I would rather be stereotyped with, I would rather be labeled
some flaming liberal than a right-wing nut. (As it is, I'm libertarian,
based on my preferences, not on choice -- my brother who was a poli sci
major in college gave me a test and I passed with flying libertarian colors.)
>Like Rush says, "You must have the courage to believe the truth, even
>if it requires you to change your thinking."
Unless you're Rush, in which case, you require others to change their thinking.
EDEW
MCR
First, I am a registered republican.. have been for over 20 years, and
have worked for democratic legislators. I usually work for legislators
that are consumer oriented in some fashion;
Second, I believe that I am smart enough to decide what is correct, so I
don't vote along party lines;
Third, I am Jewish, and probably the only "public" jewish republican in
existance;
Fourth, in the recent past (last two years), the people who have
supported us the most in the political process, are the Republicans.
why? If we approach them as a business, then things are fine, they can
respect that. But, if we approach them as "pornographers" then we always
loose. That is why SB 1014 (taxation of adult products) died in the
legislature... namely the republicans couldn't and wouldn't vote to
"increase taxes," even on an industry they dislike.
Additionally, if you watched the debate on AB 726, you will notice that
their were more democrats in support of the measure than republicans
(even though the bill passed both houses, more democrats voted in
support than republicans)
My job is to balance the "liberal vs conservatives. And when this
industry learns that the ACLU and "wild activism" (like condoms over the
captiol) may be great in the short term, those policies and positions
actually makes us more enemies in the long run
i hope in the next year that this industry will respect both democrats
and republicans and ACLU's and those opposed, just as we supposedly
support gay and lesbian rights.
Michael Ross, Adult Entertainment Advocate
Sy...@webtv.net
intellectually lazy to blindly pin labels on people. I consider my self
a critical thinker and make decisions and cast votes based on logic,
cold hard facts, and standards of decency. I tend to agree more often
with the conservative ideology but one cannot dismiss liberal arguements
entirely as the solutions to problems are often found in fragments that
must be gathered from different sources. You have accepted an all or
nothing proposition my friend. ANY group that attempts to control your
thinking for you and has no tolerance for dissenting opinion is
dangerous and for one to base opinions on sources they are ALWAYS in
agreement with is practicing childlike thinking. It is a mistake to
lump the Christian coalition with the Right Wing conservatives just as
it would be a mistake to lump the labor parties that contribute heavily
to the democratic party with the militant feminists, Pro-choice, and
enviornmentalists. Each has there own agenda and each have fragments of
the truth. But again, it would be in error to blindly accept ALL of
their ideas as the "gospel". I have not intended to insult anyone, it
just seems to me we would all get along better if we remembered that we
were PEOPLE, not labels that are pinned on us. Respectfully...
Sybok, the humble one
Lex
>I have no idea why right wing conservatives would contribute to this
>group, which they would just as well outlaw if they ruled the
>country.
I assume you mean that conservatives would outlaw porn rather than
this group. AFAIK, conservatives split on this issue between the
libertarian and the social conservative (mostly Christian) wings of
the movement. What unites most conservatives on this issue is that
they believe the matter is 1) not proper meat for federal pre-emption,
and 2) is a matter of policy best settled according to "the consent of
the governed." Most in this group would presumably cast their votes
in favor of porn with appropriate limitations on access by children.
>In any event, if you've seen Robert Bork on TV lately,
>it's quite obvious he is now full fledged lunatic fringe. Just
>imagine him on the Court. One's sphincters tighten.
A little more than we needed to know about your sphincter, friend. As
for Bork, he is a member of the social conservative wing. He makes
two cases: 1) the First Amendment was never intended by the people of
the US (whose consent is required for law to have legitimacy) to
extend to porn; and 2) porn should be censored as harmful to society
(and in fact it is already censored unless your local Fox affiliate
has started running Sodomania 10 on Sunday afterneen).
IMO, Bork is simply correct in his first argument. The framers and
ratifiers never intended to include porn as protected speech and they
censored it vigorously before and after the amendment. As a judge,
this would be the only issue that Bork would be passing judgement on.
As to the second, most conservatives of the libertarian view would
agree that porn is a matter of personal choice where adults are
concerned. If you want to make it or buy it, ain't nobody's business
if you do. Please contrast this view with the leftist knee jerk of
the Feminists that porn "degrades" women and should be banned in all
its heterosexual forms. (And I had always thought that women were
strong, equal and in the majority. The stuff you learn from the
left...)
>By the way, I read where Rudy Guiliani states he will go into
>Show World in NYC again and again to check compliance with the code.
>And he says he will do it forever and ever. Wrong Rudy. Anthony
>Comstock and Fiorelly LaGuardia tried to clean up NY for decades,
>and it always came back dirtier and more depraved than ever.
If so, you should be rolling out the red carpet for Rudy.
OTOH, I was recently forced by the weather to be dashing down 42nd
Street carrying my young daughter. I was not exactly upset that some
of NY's more colorful establishments had been moved to less
conspicuous areas. FWIW, I feel the same way about slaughterhouses.
Zoning is a good solution to the problems created by "offensive"
industries operating in the open. It preserves the individual right
to engage in commerce or entertainment while also allowing for the
free exercise of a community's right to self-governance.
>As far
>as stopping porn is concerned, Guiliani has all the signficance of
>a pimple on the ass of an elephant.
Then PLEASE let's hear about those pimples for a while. The whining
about the Guiliani stuff is getting old.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
Lex
"I oughta march right up there and show her the best 20 seconds of her life!"
-- Al Bundy
Lex
<pth...@mnsinc.com> wrote:
>CLEARAND10 wrote:
>
<snip>
>> Believe it or not there is a HUGE movement within conservatism that is
>> libertarian on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters. I'm include
d
>> in that group. The nutcake fringe you're worried about is a vocal minority.
>
>how will this HUGE movement show itself when the channels are
>largely censored by the religious crazies? I'm not being critical, I
>simply want to know so I can help. I consider myself liibertarian,
>I think, though I don't know what to do about guns or what I consider
>irresponsible procreation (stupid people making multiple stupid
>people while the mentally advanced population decreases - but
>then that sounds like liberal utopian totalitarian thinking).
The religious crazies may be loud, but they are few. They can hardly
muster the numbers for censorship of the press.
Furthermore, it is only the conservative side of the street that will
embrace the law because it comes from a majority rather than because
it conforms to a particular favored moral notion. In this defect, the
Religious Right resembles the Left far more than their fellow
conservatives. For conservatives on the whole, if you can't get 50+%
support, you have nothing and if your can't get the numbers to amend
the Constitution, you can't change it's meaning. Ultimately this
point of view is far better for the future of porn, commerce, free
speech, and FUN than anything the Totalitarian Socialist Feminist
Regulation-Crazy Utopian Whackos of the Left have to offer by way of
their "enlightened" despotism.
<snip of agreement about the lunatic left>
>My biggest question is how do we educate people so they can
>make choices? Not necessarily the "right" choices (but then
>whose definition of "right" would we use?), but how to help
>people learn how to get in touch with themselves to make
>their choices for themselves and not make their choices to
>satisfy an external, often unacknowledged, force?
The fundamental questions need to be recast. For decades the
"important" questions have been, "What should my neighbor be allowed
to do?" and, "Will I give up a little freedom to make sure he doesn't
do what offends me?"
The question we need to be asking is "Does freedom work?"
Conservatives, favoring as they do local self-governance over federal
regulation, are the group hollering a resounding, "Yes!" It is the
left that immediately launches into canards about racism and immanent
planetary death by hot air to justify their power/money grabbing
schemes. They are the ideology of division (caste system by race,
class, sex, ethnicity...) rather than unity; of hatred rather than
growth. When was the last time you had a conversation with one of the
mavens of PC without him pulling out some prejudicial epithet of hate
to use as a club to shut down the discussion. I cite the recent "Asia
is a racist because she doesn't do interracial movies and if you
defend her you must be one too" and the "Homophobe" threads as current
examples. This is not a group that believes in free speech or any
other kind of freedom that I can tell. They need to be exposed.
<snip>
>In a world of well-rounded people, we need to exercise our
>political selves to demonstrate our beliefs and be included in
>whatever census says what the "population" really believes.
The only poll that matters is done with a ballot box. :-)
>Mike Ross (aka MCR, who I know personally and is a great
>guy, socially effervescent and professionally astoundingly
>astute and well-respected) and Kat Sunlove (who I don't know,
>but I like her photo -wrongdirectiongoback- and she also
>seems to be a respectable force for good in Sacramento) are
>on the front lines fighting our fights for us.
>We need to get out of the shadows and stand in the middle
>of the streets professing our freedom beliefs, including the
>freedom to not like porn.
Right on! Also, using LEGITIMATE organizations to represent your
interests en masse is probably the best way of making sure that policy
won't drift too far from public will. MCR may be part of the
solution. Time will tell.
<snip>
>Don't try to figure it out, just do what's in front of you or else
>you'll be overwhelmed by the enormity and contradiction.
Exactly. Follow your enlightened self-interest and democracy takes
care of itself. Freedom is a beautiful thing.
> --
>Philip Townsend Hitchcock / Hitchcock & Company, Inc.
>158 Culpeper Street, Warrenton, Virginia 20186-3220
>home/office (540) 349-1020 / fax (540) 349-4670
>mailto:pth...@mnsinc.com / date of birth 6/5/53
>Highland '67 / Cranbrook '71 / Univ of Denver '75
>a director of IAEA- http://www.smnews.com/iaea/1.htm
>see my video debut in "Christi Lake's Fan Fuxxx Two"
>"Philip...nothing-weird-but-nicely-enthusiastic one-
>on-one action." from AVN Buyers Guide 1998, page 203
>http://www.christilake.com/merchandise/fanfuxxx02.jpg
>http://www.christilake.com/merchandise/fanfuxxx02b.jpg
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
Lex
"I oughta march right up there and show her the best 20 seconds of her life!"
-- Al Bundy
Patrick Riley
>Stereotypes, as stereotypes go, aren't created in a vacuum. They were
>created because there were some factual incidences which link the group
>with the type (except possibly the stereotype that black men rape white
>women which was a complete hoax).
Really? I always wonder about the postings on this group from guys who
seem to be black (hey, I could be wrong) that show an inordinate
interest in which white females have or haven't done a black guy. The
converse doesn't seem to apply.
I suppose I personally prefer to see a white male doing the screwing
rather that a black guy (something to do with easier identification, I
suppose) but if the girl in question happens to be attractive, I'm not
going to worry about the color of the male's skin too much. For
example there's a black girl called Caramel who has a delicious little
waist (must be 60% of her hip diameter) but to date I've only ever
seen her get screwed by Mr. Marcus (passionately so there might be
something going on here). I'm not waiting with bated breath for some
white mutant to do her before I can enjoy fantasizing about screwing
her myself.
Of course, you could argue that that's because most (all?) black girls
get screwed by white guys at some point in their career but even if
this were true, wouldn't we still get the question? Especially if the
viewer had only seen the black girl in an all-black series.
Another argument is that white guys don't find black girls attractive
whereas black guys do find white girls attractive. Don't know where I
stand on a generalization of this concept (don't have enough input).
Certainly some black girls have a white following (Dee and Heather
Hunter are examples). Maybe white guys tend to shy away from all (or
mostly) black videos so if the girl never makes it into the all (or
mostly) white videos they never notice her and therefore never
question "Has she done a white guy?".
Or (inflammatory passage coming up; don't read if you're PC), maybe
there's a deeper psychological reason: black guys retaliating by
screwing the out-of-reach white princess they can't possibly hope to
attain in real life and the white guys rejecting the black girls
because they see them as dirty (in the sense of disease ridden,
unclean). Hence the proliferation of titles such as White Trash Whore
and the difficulty of black girls getting into the higher-end
productions.
Not really an opinion, just a thought.
Patrick Riley
The X-Rated Videotape Guides in Six Volumes and the Star Indexes
Available from bookstores (the Barnes & Noble kind)
mpap...@webtv.net
Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable himself) ignited a firestorm of controversy by
declaring that he would never kiss a white woman on screen. For that
declaration, he was hailed in some quarters and roundly denounced in
others. I believed then, and I believe now, that denunciation was the
appropriate and civilized response to Cosby's comment.
It's one thing for a porn starlet to refuse to work with a male she
considers personally repugnant. When that sense of repugnance extends
to all the male members of a given race, however, there can be no other
word for it but "racism." I can certainly understand the dismay that
many black porn consumers must feel when a woman whose fame and fortune
rest on her being perceived as a fantasy sex partner labels them "off
limits."
Essex9999
>I have no idea why right wing conservatives would contribute to this
>group, which they would just as well outlaw if they ruled the
>country.
I could as easily say that I have no idea why left-wing liberals would
contribute to this group, which would so deeply offend their radical feminist
buddies ...
... or why you would assume that porn is so central to all r.a.m.e.rs' lives
that our political attitudes would be solely and only based on "porn
friendliness" ...
... or why you would assume that support for Bork -- or, at least, recognition
that he was a well-qualified jurist who was shafted by dirty politics -- would
automatically translate into "right wing conservative" of the Christian
Coalition (i.e. anti-porn) variety ...
... but all of the above would be based on generalizations as silly as yours.
--Steve
tor...@mindspring.com
>Personally, I am conservative because I am sick of having 40% of my
>income redistributed to people who haven't earned it.
You must mean in the guise of corporate welfare and tax breaks for the
ultra rich? Or did I misread you? You're surely not talking about the
mere pennies in comparison that go to welfare cheats. Hey better the
gov't gives them some sustenance. Otherwise the only motivation they
might want to show is to break into my car or house.
Torris
tor...@mindspring.com
>Another argument is that white guys don't find black girls attractive
>whereas black guys do find white girls attractive.
A beautiful woman crosses all ethnicity. Some of us like Indian women
who are as dark or darker than Heather Hunter
Don't know where I
>stand on a generalization of this concept (don't have enough input).
>Certainly some black girls have a white following (Dee and Heather
>Hunter are examples). Maybe white guys tend to shy away from all (or
>mostly) black videos so if the girl never makes it into the all
Yes, b/c a lot of the movies I've seen - box covers - the women are
too big boned for my taste. Too many tattoos and hair weaves too.
>Or (inflammatory passage coming up; don't read if you're PC), maybe
>there's a deeper psychological reason: black guys retaliating by
>screwing the out-of-reach white princess they can't possibly hope to
>attain in real life and the white guys rejecting the black girls
>because they see them as dirty (in the sense of disease ridden,
>unclean).
I can see the former, but what would make a normal guy automatically
assume that black girls are dirtty or unclean?
Hence the proliferation of titles such as White Trash Whore
>and the difficulty of black girls getting into the higher-end
>productions.
I don't know why more black girls don't cross over into higher end
product. Maybe this is more a fault of racism in the industry, the
same group that thinks we want to see Ron Jeremy, Max Hardcore and Rod
Fontana in every movie. I don't know if it's a prejudice on the viewer
part. Probably not the level of hostility of white girls fucking black
guys anyway.
Bushmiller
--but what the hell do I know? I'm just a busboy from New Orleans.
Lex
>Just a note about conservatives....
>
>First, I am a registered republican.. have been for over 20 years, and
>have worked for democratic legislators. I usually work for legislators
>that are consumer oriented in some fashion;
<snip>
>Fourth, in the recent past (last two years), the people who have
>supported us the most in the political process, are the Republicans.
<snip>
>My job is to balance the "liberal vs conservatives. And when this
>industry learns that the ACLU and "wild activism" (like condoms over the
>captiol) may be great in the short term, those policies and positions
>actually makes us more enemies in the long run
As you have probably been able to figure out, that "wild activism"
leads to less freedom down the road. It takes serious power to make
social reforms by political means and whether the reform works or
fails, whether it concludes or drags out, the power to regulate the
citizenry stays. The sexual revolution ended in sexual harassment laws
and "gender" preferences, anti-discrimination measures established a
racial caste system, and so on. It is a pattern that Hayek noted
generations ago. (You would think that making a long series of
correct predictions would tend to validate the view that gave rise to
them, but I suppose that would be one of those things that separates
the ideologies...)
Bottom line is that government runs on the surrender of people's money
and their freedom. It amazes me to see those liberals who claim to
want more freedom constantly joining in with those who want more
government. You would think they would have been able to figure the
truth out by now.
Lex
"I oughta march right up there and show her the best 20 seconds of her life!"
-- Al Bundy
Lex
>Dor...@camel19.mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
>>Personally, I am conservative because I am sick of having 40% of my
>>income redistributed to people who haven't earned it.
>
>You must mean in the guise of corporate welfare and tax breaks for the
>ultra rich?
If you mean subsidies, conservatives hate them. Where tax breaks are
concerned, we love 'em. Tax breaks for the rich, for the poor and for
everyone in between. And until the "rich" stop paying higher rates
than the rest of us, the most dramatic relief goes to them. At worst,
the tax system punishes achievement. At best, it just encourages the
wealthy to keep their money locked away in sheltered holdings rather
than putting it into the economy.
>Or did I misread you? You're surely not talking about the
>mere pennies in comparison that go to welfare cheats. Hey better the
>gov't gives them some sustenance. Otherwise the only motivation they
>might want to show is to break into my car or house.
Welfare hurts more than just in the sense of creating cheats. As for
home safety, that's why the framers made sure to attach the Second
Amendment to the Constitution.
You do realize, don't you, that welfare (and the Nanny State in
general) is a relatively new development in out history? That people
have had safety and low taxes and even, *gasp*, private and church
charity to help the poor? Freedom works, friend, far better than
socialist redistributions. Both recent and not so recent history
should have made that clear by now.
>Torris
Hart Williams
>Years ago, during the heyday of Black Power, Bill Cosby (yes, the kindly
>Dr. Heathcliff Huxtable himself) ignited a firestorm of controversy by
>declaring that he would never kiss a white woman on screen. For that
>declaration, he was hailed in some quarters and roundly denounced in
>others. I believed then, and I believe now, that denunciation was the
>appropriate and civilized response to Cosby's comment.
>
>It's one thing for a porn starlet to refuse to work with a male she
>considers personally repugnant. When that sense of repugnance extends
>to all the male members of a given race, however, there can be no other
>word for it but "racism." I can certainly understand the dismay that
>many black porn consumers must feel when a woman whose fame and fortune
>rest on her being perceived as a fantasy sex partner labels them "off
>limits."
Very interesting, but, at the risk of looking like an ass: What the
hell does this have to do with the thread?
Or did you just hit the wrong button while trying to respond to
the thread psycho-anal-izing Asia Carrera?
Hart Williams
http://hartwilliams.com
Patrick Riley
great" thread, the anonymous moderator led me to believe that any
serious rebuttal to Rush...er, I mean Lex would be met with a
rejection letter, so I left it alone. That was about 20 posts ago,
easily enough time for anything to have filtered through the system.
So, I consider it my turn!
Federa...@hotmail.com (Lex) wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Sep 98 00:46:26, tor...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>Dor...@camel19.mindspring.com wrote:
>>>Personally, I am conservative because I am sick of having 40% of my
>>>income redistributed to people who haven't earned it.
>>You must mean in the guise of corporate welfare and tax breaks for the
>>ultra rich?
>If you mean subsidies, conservatives hate them.
Yeah, that's why they're so anxious to get rid of them. Every year
those farm state Republicans shed a few tears about farm subsidies and
continue to pump out the money.
> Where tax breaks are
>concerned, we love 'em.
That's understandable. Greed is a conservative trait.
> Tax breaks for the rich, for the poor and for
>everyone in between.
You have to have the income to benefit from tax breaks. Another reason
why conservatives love them. Can't have any money going to the poor or
middle class.
> And until the "rich" stop paying higher rates
>than the rest of us, the most dramatic relief goes to them.
But it doesn't have to. This is the usual conservative dishonest
phraseology shifting the argument to "poor little rich guy who just
has to put up with the system the way it's currently working."
> At worst,
>the tax system punishes achievement.
It doesn't punish anything. It reclaims the excess (or some of it)
that you weren't entitled to anyway. You don't merit it. You don't
work (expenditure of effort) any harder that the guy in McDonalds. You
weren't responsible for your genes. You didn't earn the money left to
you by your parents.
> At best, it just encourages the
>wealthy to keep their money locked away in sheltered holdings rather
>than putting it into the economy.
The money would come out quick smart if the conservatives didn't keep
those tax shelters in the system. Right out of the tax shelters into
the waiting arms of society to whom it belongs.
>Or did I misread you? You're surely not talking about the
>>mere pennies in comparison that go to welfare cheats. Hey better the
>>gov't gives them some sustenance. Otherwise the only motivation they
>>might want to show is to break into my car or house.
>Welfare hurts more than just in the sense of creating cheats.
I thought that with the aid of that crypto-conservative Clinton you
had managed to do away with welfare (except corporate welfare of
course). I hear Randy Detroit is getting more and more mothers with
kids to support. Hey, fucking is better than starving!
> As for
>home safety, that's why the framers made sure to attach the Second
>Amendment to the Constitution.
Yeah, sure. All those private guns. What a load of twaddle. The
framers didn't live in overcrowded cities with Uzi's and saturday
night specials. Or, you're so great with "what the founders' intended"
why can't I have my personal cruise missile? After all, the weapons
they had at the time were the weapons that were used by the armed
forces.
>You do realize, don't you, that welfare (and the Nanny State in
>general) is a relatively new development in out history?
So is the computer, the VCR, and porno movies. The constitution and
your beloved free enterprise capitalist system works well when we were
mostly living on subsistence farms. No matter how hard you plow the
field or how much smarter you are, you're not going to sell your
surplus for much more than the next guy. Complicated societies require
complex laws and complex solutions.
> That people
>have had safety and low taxes and even, *gasp*, private and church
>charity to help the poor?
They had safety when they were living miles away from each other but
if you think it was safe in the big cities when they started moving
closer together (say after the civil war) you're very much mistaken.
Ah, the old argument of private and church charity to help the "poor".
Toys from the aristocracy at Christmas time, eh. Let them eat cake the
rest of the year. And that's only for the "deserving poor" of course.
That mother with her three kids should have thought about it before
she hopped into the cot. They can starve!
> Freedom works, friend, far better than
>socialist redistributions.
Freedom isn't worth having if you're starving.
> Both recent and not so recent history
>should have made that clear by now.
Since we don't have a parallel universe in which to test your 18th
century "survival of the fittest, winner take all, devil take the
hindmost," or its opposite (a nice friendly society) we'll never know.
Patrick Riley
Working for a 90% tax rate on all income over $100,000 and all capital
(not capital gains) in excess of the family home, car, etc.
tor...@mindspring.com
>
>If you mean subsidies, conservatives hate them.
I haven't seen Jesse Helms turning away tobacco subsidies. I grew up
in a state where they paid farmers not to plant their fields.
Torris
Peter Gustafsson
After reading several posts by Lex in this thread, many of which do not
deal with porn at all, I would like to offer a short comparison.
I live in Sweden, a country which has been governd by a socialistic
Labor party since 1932, except 9 years. For most of that time the only
openly christian party has gotten less than 4% of the popular vote, and
therefore has had *no* parliamentary representation at all. It has for a
long time been a political liability to be openly christian for Swedish
politicials. In Sweden, the courts can not throw out a law if they find
it unconstitutional, the legislative/goveremental arm is specifically
stated as the most powerful political force in the legal/constitutional
texts.
Sweden also has a much more porn-friendly set of laws than (I dare say)
all parts of USA, and despite some recent attacks from the feminists
that does not seem to change in the near future. Denmark, a neighboring
country, has a similar political landscape, and even more porn-friendly
laws.
There are several countries in Europe where parties which would be
classified as left-of-democrat in USA have had a decisive political
influence, yet the porn laws are freer than in most of USA. I would say
that Lex愀 hailing of conservative ideology on rame is a bit misplaced,
considering that this NG is about porn.
Pete
Lex
>In article <rame.904752004p16652@bash> mg...@juno.com writes:
>>
>>Personally, I am conservative because I am sick of having 40% of my
>>income redistributed to people who haven't earned it.
>
>Sorry for the PC rant here, but....
>The part of that 40% that gets distributed to people who didn't earn it (i.e.,
>I presume you mean welfare folks) is minimal. The bulk of it, as you can
>see at the back of any IRS booklet, goes to defense and administration of
>the government.
This is like saying the "bulk" of my personal budget goes to bubblegum
and the mortgage. It is hard to believe that you consider the 5
TRILLION dollars spent on 30 years of welfare to be "minimal."
Especially considering that we have as many poor people as ever and
have actually created a destructive ethic of dependency with our
money.
Not only are church and private charity programs more efficient, they
also promote a more productive and self-reliant mind set among their
beneficiaries. This is why poverty was on the decline prior to the
Great Society but not after. Apparently promoting this human misery
is a sign of "compassion" among the left.
"Administration" means the EPA, EEOC and all the other non-elected
minions of the bureaucratic Leviathan. Hardly something for
conservatives, who believe in smaller and more accountable government,
to feel good about funding. I understand your tastes differ.
>Eh, maybe you're right. Those folks didn't earn it either.
The military earns every cent. In fact, they are essential for
creating and preserving global stability without which we have far
less international investment and profit. The global economy exists
in part because our soldiers and our arsenal exist. And this doesn't
even count in the innocent lives and national security our military
preserves. This is not only one of the few legitimate areas for a
federal government, it also gives incalculable returns.
OTOH, the Socialism-lite of the Great Society advances nobody (and
nutcases like the EPA should be paying us).
Not that facts will count a whole lot here, but FY 93-94 totals (the
most recent collated by independent accounting) for some relevant
departments were:
Defense 266 Billion 25.8%
Health & Human Services 204 Billion 19.8%
Treasury * 200 Billion 19.3%
Agriculture ** 65 Billion 6.3%
Labor *** 36 Billion 3.5%
VA 35 Billion 3.4%
Education 32 Billion 3.1%
Personnel Management **** 25 Billion 2.4%
HUD 24 Billion 2.4%
Totals
Defense Defense 266
VA 35
Pro Rata on Debt's Interest 58 ___
359 Billion
Income Redistribution
H&HS 204
Agricult 65
Labor 36
Education 32
Pers Mgmt 25
HUD 24
Pro Rata on Debt's Interest 70 ___
456 Billion
(* Treasury's bill is almost entirely service on the national debt.
This debt is attributed to Reagan's military by libs - in which case
it paid for itself with the peace dividend that followed the USSR's
end - or to the rampant social spending Dem's forced before they would
allow the military budget. Probably the least offensive thing to do
is to apportion this interest payment to the various departments in
the same proportion these departments eat current revenues. Slightly
off, but innocuous.)
(** Agriculture handles as its single biggest item the Food Stamp
program. Others include school lunch and paying poor farmers not to
grow things that people wouldn't want to buy in the first place.)
(*** Labor's budget, after a lot of tracing, is mostly about funding
Unemployment insurance.)
(**** Over 98% of Personnel's budget goes to pay the insurance and
pensions of the government parasites in these other agencies. For the
military, this is handled by DoD and the VA.)
The cost of that welfare state is looking pretty significant to me.
Plus there are the hidden costs and benefits: The military creates
world stability, like it or not, and that allows trade to flourish.
Even with all the money we have spent on welfare, the historical trend
of reducing the numbers of the poor promptly stopped once the Great
Society was enacted. (This is especially noteworthy considering the
state of race relations through this period.) The military means more
money through trade and investment; welfare means locking a class of
dependency in place. Golly. Which one looks like a good deal to you?
>>
>>I also believe, as many conservatives do, that what consensual adults
>>do in private is their own business so long as it doesn't harm anyone.
>>While the originator of this thread is busy blindly stereotyping
>>conservatives, he should investigate how his liberal friends vote on
>>anything regarding adult businesses.
>Stereotypes, as stereotypes go, aren't created in a vacuum. They were
>created because there were some factual incidences which link the group
>with the type (except possibly the stereotype that black men rape white
>women which was a complete hoax). Like it or not, the Jerry Falwells and
>the Pat Robertsons ARE lumped with the conservatives. Until you move to
>the libertarian stance (then, you are unfortunately grouped with the
>wackos like Lyndon LaRouche) you will have that Falwell-albatross hanging
>on your neck.
Stereotypes are not the result of independent thinking. They are a
substitute for it.
Your definition of "libertarian" appears to be "Liberal who learned
how to balance his own checkbook." As long as you rely on government
to *give* you liberty, you ain't no libertarian. Libertine, perhaps,
but that is a different story.
The Religious Right is the conservative version of the Feminist Left.
They even have some of the same agenda items, which is bad news for
porn if either takes power. Considering the state of sexual
harassment law, gender preferences, the partial birth abortion ban,
and women in the military, I would say porn lovers have a lot more to
fear from the Hezballa wing of the Left than from the Christian Right.
>Liberals are also liberally (hah!) stereotyped, although given the choice
>of which group I would rather be stereotyped with, I would rather be labeled
>some flaming liberal than a right-wing nut. (As it is, I'm libertarian,
>based on my preferences, not on choice -- my brother who was a poli sci
>major in college gave me a test and I passed with flying libertarian colors.)
So your brother, who has no degree in anything yet, gave you a "test"
that proves you are a "libertarian" instead of a "flaming liberal"?!
I hope you thanked him. Has he tested your sexual preference as well?
Also, maybe you can explain what the difference between "preference"
and "choice" would be as you use them here. As I understand the
words, you are saying that you are a libertarian only in the sense
that you have libertarian impulses that you don't actually do anything
with. Surely you mean something else?
But what would I know. I'm just a right-wing nut.
>>Like Rush says, "You must have the courage to believe the truth, even
>>if it requires you to change your thinking."
>
>Unless you're Rush, in which case, you require others to change their thinking.
... to conform to the truth. Yes. Obviously. If you can't embrace
truth yourself, you have no business asking others to do the same.
Was this supposed to be a dig?
Wake up, EDEW. This is a "zero sum" game. Government can only expand
by eating money and freedom. As long as you support the statist left,
you jeopardize your own future. A conservative vision of the federal
government may officially disapprove of porn, but only the liberal
Leviathan is big enough (and so inclined) to do anything about it.
Lex
"I oughta march right up there and show her the best 20 seconds of her life!"
-- Al Bundy
Lex
>In article <rame.904752004p16652@bash> mg...@juno.com writes:
>>
>>Personally, I am conservative because I am sick of having 40% of my
>>income redistributed to people who haven't earned it.
>
>Sorry for the PC rant here, but....
>The part of that 40% that gets distributed to people who didn't earn it (i.e.,
>I presume you mean welfare folks) is minimal. The bulk of it, as you can
>see at the back of any IRS booklet, goes to defense and administration of
>the government.
You obviously don't know what "administration" means in the context of
governmental organizations. It doesn't mean "secretaries and paper
clips." It means AGENCIES.
This summary is from Citizens for Budget Reform at
http://www.budget.org . Dollars are in billions. Percentages
represent share of federal budget.
Category 1955 1996
Mandatory
Social Security $2 (3%) $335 (22%)
Medicare $ (0%) $174 (11%)
Other $ (0%) $243 (16%)
Discretionary
National Security $41 (63%) $272(18%)
Other $16 (24%) $282 (18%)
Interest $ 6 (9%) $234 (15%)
Total Spending $65 $1,539
"Minimal" my ass. As for the IRS, the next time I feel like asking
the fox about the condition of the hen house, I'll ask him myself.
Brad Williams
and how that relates to the topic here, but now it is getting into
issue-by-issue dissections that have veered way off-topic for this group
and lost some of the earlier intelligent musings. This thread needs to
get back to something that at least somewhat relates to the topic of
erotic movies or end.
Brad
co-moderator of rame
X-Nico
(snip)
> Federa...@hotmail.com (Lex) wrote:
(snip)
> >You do realize, don't you, that welfare (and the Nanny State in
> >general) is a relatively new development in out history?
>
> So is the computer, the VCR, and porno movies.
Point of correction needed here. Porno movies (well, stag films, anyway)
go back nearly a century.
Otherwise, I agree with you *totally*-- couldn't have said it better
myself. *Scary* thought, eh?
(snip)
> Working for a 90% tax rate on all income over $100,000 and all capital
> (not capital gains) in excess of the family home, car, etc.
Great! And let's try to find a way to revoke the tax-exempt "non-profit"
status of all those televangelists while we're at it. The tax exemption
for churches SURELY wasn't created with multimillion dollar corporations
like Pat Robertson's operation in mind!
X-Nico
>
> Federa...@hotmail.com (Lex) wrote:
>
> >
> >If you mean subsidies, conservatives hate them.
>
> I haven't seen Jesse Helms turning away tobacco subsidies. I grew up
> in a state where they paid farmers not to plant their fields.
That's true of *all* tobacco states-- which tend to vote Republican in
national elections-- and not just NC. But tobacco subsidies are THE
major reason Helms has been re-elected to the Senate since '68.
Well, that and whatever right-wing paranoid fantasy he can scare the
voters with. It used to be "integration" and "the Commies taking over",
now it's "porn destroying moral values" and "gays after your children".
ImFreeinMO
>When that sense of repugnance extends
>to all the male members of a given race, however, there can be no other
>word for it but "racism." I can certainly understand the dismay that
>many black porn consumers must feel when a woman whose fame and fortune
>rest on her being perceived as a fantasy sex partner labels them "off
>limits."
I tend to agree. I also have a great deal easier time identifying with white
men banging whomever it is they are banging, but can easily make exceptions.
I have found black friends much more willing to have sex with and more
attracted to white females than my white male counterparts are to black women.
I've heard everything from downright racist comments to skin texture and hair
texture as the reason they are not attracted to black women. No matter what
the "reason" is, it's still stereotyping a whole race.
Me? She's either hot or she's not, no matter the race. Who ever is in the
scene with her, if she's hot, is a lucky man, no matter what his race is!
Personally, I find the "all black" type tapes as offensive as a series that
actually labeled itself "all white". I understand why the tapes are out there,
though, as there are tons of "all white" tapes, even if they don't label them
as such.
-Mycosyco-
http://www.mrwwrestling.com
Midwest Renegade Wrestling
We kick ass for a living!
Lex
On Thu, 03 Sep 98 20:43:35, Peter Gustafsson
<peter.gu...@ce.luth.se> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>After reading several posts by Lex in this thread, many of which do not
>deal with porn at all, I would like to offer a short comparison.
>
[snip: Sweeden has, at least on paper, an arrangement similar to the
USA with respect to legislature vs. the courts. Christian activists
are also politically insignificant there just as they are here.]
>
>Sweden also has a much more porn-friendly set of laws than (I dare say)
>all parts of USA, and despite some recent attacks from the feminists
>that does not seem to change in the near future. Denmark, a neighboring
>country, has a similar political landscape, and even more porn-friendly
>laws.
Curious what Sweedish "feminists" look like. Are they hot? :-)
As to the similarity of American and Baltic politics, I am inclined to
doubt it. Depends, I suppose, on how closely one cares to look.
Definitely a topic for e-mail.
>There are several countries in Europe where parties which would be
>classified as left-of-democrat in USA have had a decisive political
>influence, yet the porn laws are freer than in most of USA. I would say
>that Lex愀 hailing of conservative ideology on rame is a bit misplaced,
>considering that this NG is about porn.
It ain't just me observing (and from first hand experience) that the
conservatives aren't where the threat to porn is found. MCR has
already posted some of his experiences with respect to American
legislatures and American Democrats versus Republicans, so references
to Sweeden's political coalitions may be a little stretched until
Swedes start taking over these parties.
The fact is that in America, both parties have strong, motivated
anti-porn moralizers in them. They do not represent the majority
views of either party, and where the Republicans are concerned, the
would-be censors are so badly locked out of power that they routinely
threaten to leave the party. When was the last time we heard the
feminists making such a threat? They are essential to continued
Democratic vitality and get to shape whole areas of law to suit their
tastes.
Despite both parties carrying intolerant factions, only one party
actually favors a government large and intrusive enough to force on
the rest of us policies that would satisfy these prudes. It ain't the
one with the conservatives. The conservatives I know and correspond
with want to keep porn free and scandalous - just the way God
intended.
Hell, even Rush is on record saying that he doesn't want to see
censorship on the internet. Hillary, OTOH, announces that the idea
of an unregulated internet needs to be rethought - just because the
Drudge Report is on it. Couple that extreme willingness to censor
with the fact that bare nekkid wymmyn on the net drive the feminazi's
crazy and you have a roadmap to the inevitable.
A government with the power to protect porn is a government with the
power to destroy it. Whatever Sweeden may be like, American history
teaches that power to do good is inevitably turned to mischief. Porn
is far safer if nobody has that kind of power in the first place.
Lex
____________________
[A]fter having thus successively taken each member of
the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned
him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm
over the whole community. It covers the surface of
society with a network of small complicated rules,
minute and uniform, through which the most original
minds and the most energetic characters cannot
penetrate to rise above the crowd. The will of man
is not shattered but softened, bent and guided; men
are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly
restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy,
but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but
it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupifies
a people, til each nation is reduced to be nothing
better than a flock of timid and industrial animals,
of which government is the shepherd. -- I have always
thought that servitude of the regular, quiet, and
gentle kind which I have just described might be
combined more easily than is commonly believed with
some of the outward forms of freedom and that it might
even establish itself under the wing of sovereignty
of the people.
Alexis de Tocqueville
Democracy in America
Lex
wrote:
>Federa...@hotmail.com (Lex) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Sep 98 00:46:26, tor...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>>>Dor...@camel19.mindspring.com wrote:
The Mod correctly rejected a more technical reply. I'll try to do my
part to drag the topic back to porn or, in keeping with the point of
this thread, "freedom and porn" with only minor digressive chuckles
along the way.
<snip>
>>>You must mean in the guise of corporate welfare and tax breaks for the
>>>ultra rich?
>>If you mean subsidies, conservatives hate them.
>Yeah, that's why they're so anxious to get rid of them. Every year
>those farm state Republicans shed a few tears about farm subsidies and
>continue to pump out the money.
Poor farmers are "ultra rich"? Cool. Conservatives still tend to
oppose these subsidies, but that is because we are "cold hearted," not
"dupes of the rich." We like the idea of leaving businesses alone and
letting markets decide what lives or dies. That's why conservatives
and Republicans in general are so receptive to keeping porn
unregulated if you just give them the fig leaf of "business
considerations" to cover themselves. See MCR's posts on this subject.
<snip. Argument:" Eat the productive." Rebuttal: "And then starve."
This argument was raised in the 19th Century and disproved by the
Soviet failure in the 20th. It has nothing to do with porn except
that it attempts to vilify members of this group on ideological
grounds. We can do that by e-mail. :-) >
>>Or did I misread you? You're surely not talking about the
>>>mere pennies in comparison that go to welfare cheats. Hey better the
>>>gov't gives them some sustenance. Otherwise the only motivation they
>>>might want to show is to break into my car or house.
>
>>Welfare hurts more than just in the sense of creating cheats.
>
>I thought that with the aid of that crypto-conservative Clinton you
>had managed to do away with welfare (except corporate welfare of
>course). I hear Randy Detroit is getting more and more mothers with
>kids to support. Hey, fucking is better than starving!
LOL! Clinton is a "crypto-conservative"! I guess he takes his
marching orders from Newt, too! That's probably where he got the
"Eatin ain't cheatin'" rule!
<snip. Position: "Grab the guns." Rebuttal: "Fine. Crooks first."
E-mail again.>
>>You do realize, don't you, that welfare (and the Nanny State in
>>general) is a relatively new development in out history?
>So is the computer, the VCR, and porno movies. The constitution and
>your beloved free enterprise capitalist system works well when we were
>mostly living on subsistence farms. No matter how hard you plow the
>field or how much smarter you are, you're not going to sell your
>surplus for much more than the next guy. Complicated societies require
>complex laws and complex solutions.
Porno is ancient. Porno movies are as old as cinema. The point is
that you gain insight into the necessity of something if you can
examine a period where it didn't exist. Poverty declined much faster
before welfare than after. If fighting poverty was the goal, welfare
failed. The point of porno movies is to make porno even more exciting
than photographs, drawings and the written word. It really, really
does. Porno movies are a success. "Down with welfare! Up with
porno!" Maybe we should have a jobs program to put the poor to work
in the sex industry? Sort of like what the work-release program does
for criminals? :-)
Complex problems don't always require complex solutions. (Examples:
Alexander and the Gordian Knot; The American Revolution to resolve
representational problems inherent in colonial politics; condoms and
monogamy to deal "too complex to cure yet" HIV.) Complex solutions,
OTOH, tend give rise to complex problems.
<snip>
>> Freedom works, friend, far better than
>>socialist redistributions.
>
>Freedom isn't worth having if you're starving.
Or so Lenin claimed. (Of course, it turns out that the freest
countries had the fewest numbers starving, but why worry about that?)
Did they have much fun in the USSR? Was the porno any good? When was
the first Soviet porno vid shot, anyway? Were people even free to
criticize the system or act "offensively"? Freedom doesn't just work
better for feeding people, it's also more fun. I've been poor. Give
me freedom any day.
Lex
____________________
tor...@mindspring.com
>Great! And let's try to find a way to revoke the tax-exempt "non-profit"
>status of all those televangelists while we're at it. The tax exemption
>for churches SURELY wasn't created with multimillion dollar corporations
>like Pat Robertson's operation in mind!
Colorado tried this last election. Boy were the churches out in full
force against this!
Torris
Mike Paul
> Another argument is that white guys don't find black girls attractive
> whereas black guys do find white girls attractive. Don't know where I
> stand on a generalization of this concept (don't have enough input).
> Certainly some black girls have a white following (Dee and Heather
> Hunter are examples). Maybe white guys tend to shy away from all (or
> mostly) black videos so if the girl never makes it into the all (or
> mostly) white videos they never notice her and therefore never
> question "Has she done a white guy?".
Repeats in the all-Black market are few and far between lately.
It *would* be easy to specialize there, and never do Whites, but only if
money isn't why they do porn...
> Patrick Riley
Mike Paul
It took a year of looking before I found Toy doing a White guy, and put her
on my A-list...
Lex
>X-Nico <XN...@XNICO.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Great! And let's try to find a way to revoke the tax-exempt "non-profit"
>>status of all those televangelists while we're at it. The tax exemption
>>for churches SURELY wasn't created with multimillion dollar corporations
>>like Pat Robertson's operation in mind!
>
>Colorado tried this last election. Boy were the churches out in full
>force against this!
I would imagine that this tax status was offered at least in part to
avoid running afoul of the Free Exercise Clause. No only is it proper
for multi-million dollar religious operations like Robertson's, it is
proper for multi-TRILLION dollar operations like the Catholic Church.
As long as it takes money to run a church, taxing churches on the
money they take in as a part of their ministries and the money they
spend in the furtherance of their ministries is constitutionally
dubious.
If this is unbearable, you can advocate an amendment to the
Constitution. I'm sure lots of churchmen would advocate the same kind
of reforms with respect to the Free Speech Clause. As it stands now,
however, the same amendment that protects porn from Pat Robertson also
seems to protect Pat Robertson from the IRS.
>Torris
Lex
__________________________
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the
fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the
theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we
have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual
men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution
is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean."
Justice Curtis, dissenting in Dread Scott v. Sandord, (1857).