Posted on 07/14/2004 7:46:19 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
One beneficial side effect on the war on Wahabi Wackjobism is that it will probably make such attitudes less acceptable in polite society, much as the war on Naziism cast a sterilizing light upon the genteel anti-Semitism endemic to Western societies up to that time.
-sign in Clarence Thomas' office.
was that an admission on your part, swampfox98, that you made a deliberate personal attack against tpaine?
Of course. Why wouldn't I approve of the court applying the Constitution correctly?
Yet another lie. Repeatedly on this board, I have expressed the opinion that the proper response to court descisions you do not like, or to outcomes one does not support, is to continue to work legally and within the system for change. I am no anarchist; I take my oaths to uphold the Constitution and our system of government deadly serious. Even descisions I do not personally agree with. I have never advocated extra-Constitutional means to rectify what I do not like.
It's always interesting to see a person "deny" something he was never accused of in the first place. One of those things that make me go Hmmm...
In my heart I want women, children and animals to be protected from being hurt by pornography reading perverts. Those who defend pornography obviously don't care.
How do you think I'm going to react to your question? Run away terrified by you big ole porno supporting posters? In a pig's eye. Hey, get me kicked off Free Republic for defending the rights of women, children and animals. I don't give a rat's. I'll go proudly because I'm right.
By that remarkable turn of logic, WalMart should be the world's largest producer of child pornography.
I am reminded of this exchange:
"What is your definition of justice?"
"Justice, Elijah, is that which exists when all the laws are enforced."
Fastolfe nodded. "A good definition, Mr. Baley, for a robot.... A human being can recognize the fact that, on the basis of an abstract moral code, some laws may be bad ones and their enforcement unjust. What do you say, R. Daneel?"
"An unjust law," said R. Daneel evenly, "is a contradiction in terms."
-- Isaac Asimov (The Caves Of Steel)
I was taught early on that those freedoms contained in the Constitution had a corollary...that they might be used in a manner we might NOT like, but that was no reason to abridge them. We cannot "cherry-pick" which freedoms and Liberties we will and will not support.
-Long Cut-
______________________________________
There's another corollary to the Constitution:
The fact that it's something you do like, doesn't necessarily mean it's a right enshrined in the Constitution.
Porn is a case in point. It is not "speech", and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.
587 inquest
______________________________________
And what -you- & your peers don't 'like' and see as porn can be reasonably regulated, inq.
But your options on 'regulating' are tempered by our Constitutional rule of law & due process.
You have no natural right to commit an aggression, a 'porno' prohibition, on the equal rights of your peers.
If you take the time to look, you'll see that many of the ones who encourage the libertine mindset have only been FReepers for 60 days or less. Many trolls are lurking these days. Ignore their hyena taunts.
I do, but clearly you don't and ignore and reject any research which shows your positions to be false.
Still waiting for you to cite the laws and statues that make the production of, distribution of, and possesion of porn illegal.
In her heart, I'm sure Sara Brady wants good men to be protected from whackjobs with handguns. MADD wants their families to be protected from booze guzzling drivers. There's nothing wrong with this. Everyone wants things, it's what they're willing to do to get them that gets to be problematic.
Anybody with a speck of common sense has "reason to doubt" a statistic that flies in the face of ordinary experience (i.e. most people do not see an adult bookstore on the roadside nearly as often as they see the Golden Arches, much less three times as often).
If someone told me that they'd seen a horse in a field, I'd take it at face value. If they said they'd seen a zebra, I'd want some confirmation. If told that someone had seen a centaur, I'd pretty much dismiss the claim out of hand barring some extremely strong evidence.
No, you don't get it. The poster made the correct claim that with the end of alcohol prohibition the gangs related to the illegal production of, smuggling, and control of the distribution of illegal alcohol went away.
They did.
Phantom Lord
______________________________________
Legalizing a drug will not make gang violence go away.
Legalizing alcohol only moved the gangs into drugs.
Legalizing marijuana will not make the gang violence go away. They'll continue to deal hard drugs.
Legalize all recreational drugs and the gangs will deal prescription drugs, export drugs, and sell to minors. Violence remains.
591 bumpkinbob
______________________________________
Bob advocates total prohibition of ALL mind altering substances.
And is too dense to realize how his position violates our Constitutional principles.
Someone testifying on the floor of Congress can say that the Earth is flat, and this statement will be solemnly recorded in the resulting committee report. That doesn't make it credible.
What defines an adult bookstore should be a pretty narrow definition. A video store whose primary business is the rental of regular hollywood releases but has an adult section in the back is not an adult bookstore. A Kwiki-Mart that sells Playboy, Hustler, etc... is not an adult bookstore. Barnes and Noble, who sells said mags is not an adult bookstore.
And adult bookstore is a store who sole purpose is the sale of adult products such as magazines, videos, books, and marital aides as they are commonly called.
Such lovely non-sequiturs you spin forth.
"In my heart I want women, children and animals to be protected from being hurt by pornography reading perverts."
1. If you say so, dear.
"Those who defend pornography obviously don't care."
2. You err, but nothing - not even the direct testimony of God Almighty - shall ever suffice to convince you of that fact.
"How do you think I'm going to react to your question? Run away terrified by you big ole porno supporting posters?"
3. No, I expected you to react pretty much the way you did: with acrimony, bombast, chest-beating, illogic, ad-hominem, and non-sequitur.
"In a pig's eye. Hey, get me kicked off Free Republic for defending the rights of women, children and animals."
4. As I am not a Mod, I cannot "get you kicked off" this site.
5. Even were I a Mod, I would not "get you kicked off" this site for actually defending the rights of women, children, and animals.
6. Since that is not what you are doing, that is irrelevant.
7. What I can do, and AM doing, is alerting the Admin Moderator to a poster who is making personal attacks against other members of this site, in direct violation of this site's TOS. I am making no recommendation as to actions to be taken - that is up to the Powers of this site - not me, and not you.
"I don't give a rat's."
8. Of course you don't, dear.
"I'll go proudly..."
9. Irrelevant. If it comes to you leaving, you will go - proudly or otherwise.
"...because I'm right."
10. That is highly debatable (as over 600 posts of heated disagreement makes quite evident)
Actually, your contention was the opposite. You contended that if current mainstream porn was made illegal, those who are currently producing said porn would turn to child porn to make a buck.
Playboy is pornographic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.