[mvpel]

If you consider two pictures of pretty women with all of their clothes on to be pornography being "forced upon" you, I have to wonder what your standards are, and whether you object to - as pornographic - the various pictures of Ann Coulter that are typically seen by the readers of her articles on Free Republic threads.

Saudi Arabia and the Taliban have one possible standard for display of the female image, what's yours?

[Tailgunner Joe]

Personally, Ann's ideas are what I find most attractive about her.

[Antoninus]

Saudi Arabia and the Taliban have one possible standard for display of the female image, what's yours?

I reckon you do too. Question: if you're so into freedom to view porn, why do you put up with the oppressive rules on FR that say absolutely no posting pornography. Shouldn't you be protesting the fact that JimRob is limiting your freedom to such a horrible extent? Strikes me you may want to quit FR and sign up for a more "porn friendly" site.

[BlackbirdSST]

Saudi Arabia and the Taliban have one possible standard for display of the female image, what's yours?

Some in our group of FRiends can't even handle a bare breasted Lady of Justice. That should speak volumes. Blackbird.

[robertpaulsen]

"If you consider two pictures of pretty women with all of their clothes on to be pornography being "forced upon" you,"

What is being "forced" on me is the "in your face" flaunting of the legalization of porn -- the "see what I can legally get away with and you can't stop me" immature, childish, and rude behavior that I've come to expect from the groups who are trying their best to tear down the Christian foundations of this country of ours.

I don't consider the two pictures of these whores to be pornography -- just in bad taste. But I bet you have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?