19072 Members
14 Forums
40341 Topics
614112 Posts
Max Online: 887 @ 01/11/25 11:07 AM
|
|
|
#37034 - 07/12/04 04:50 AM
Should the Far Right be Taken More Seriously
|
ADT regular
Registered: 07/12/04
Posts: 1
|
How committed is the Far Right in imposing their views of sexual morality upon the country? Is their moral campaign which generally demonizes porn culture equally dangerous than their historical legal attempts to censor it?
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37035 - 07/12/04 04:52 AM
Re: Should the Far Right be Taken More Seriously
|
Porn Jesus
Registered: 08/09/06
Posts: 9113
Loc: red dirt state of mind
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37039 - 07/12/04 06:06 PM
Re: Should the Far Right be Taken More Seriously
|
Internet Tough Guy
Registered: 05/29/04
Posts: 764
Loc: Tralfamadore
|
Any time ANY religion gets meshed with politics bad things happen. History is replete with tremendous tragedy and horror all in the name of God. The current administration (regime) is full of religious whackaloons/zealots. Looking back over the last four years how could anyone in there right mind want another four? Another Bush term in office will change the entire dynamics of the supreme court and imagine what Ashcroft will be able to do with that? Operation Pipedreams and the current legal hassles being brought on the more outrageous hardcore pornographers is going to appear pale in comparison with what these folks have in mind. A guy who asks that a statue of Lady Justice be frocked prior to a press conference is the top law enforcement officer in the USA! Get them out of office before its too late!!! If ya wanna know what it will be like in this country when these guys get done move to Utah.
_________________________
meh.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37040 - 07/12/04 06:28 PM
Re: Should the Far Right be Taken More Seriously
|
Human Garbage
Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 1683
|
Quote:
I think you have hit upon an important issue, in that Kerry might even be worse if he wants to make up with the moral majority over abortion he may turn to other moral issues like porn to set an example- nobody ever knows though until they get into office.
Clinton didn't get involved in anti-porn crusades because, well, aside from probably having the entire catalog of JM Productions videos in his private library, he didn't follow the notion of state paternalism.
State paternalism (the state acting essentially as a stern, guiding father) isn't a left or right issue. Ralph Nader believes in it every bit as much as Ronald Reagan did.
John Ashcroft believes in protecting us from ourselves, there's no doubt about that. This guy has done such a horrible job it's astounding. If there's ever a time that agents and resources need to be prioritized toward people who are running around right now, thinking of ways to kill us rather than whether or not Extreme Associates broke obscenity laws, it's now.
You can say it's Ashcroft, not Bush. Yet he stuck with him, in spite of the political fall-out, and the fact that his Attorney General (ie, overseer of the FBI) and his Secretary for Homeland Security appear to despise each other. Ashchroft keeps making announcements, Ridge keeps refusing to sign off on them. How fucked up is that?
As a lame-duck, Bush will have absolutely no incentive whatsoever to restrain him. The sky won't fall. But as someone with libertarian views (not the party, which is just pathetic), I'd rather vote against a guy I know would like to make decisions for me rather than allow me to make them for myself.
I'd prefer to roll the dice and know I'm getting someone else, and work to make sure the new guy isn't another John Ashcroft. Or a Gloria Steinem. People seem to forget the second half of that. Clinton introduced someone to the justice department (Lani Gurnier) who was an outright left-wing extremist. People rose up, she withdrew. Better the risk of that than voting with a guy who I know is going to try to save me from my sins.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
0 registered (),
595
Guests and
16
Spiders online. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|