The Obscenity Police Are Coming

[xfire]

Everyone on FreeOnes should be concerned about a Romney administration in the White House.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2012/09/13/mitt-romney-porn/

“They want to put me in jail, basically.”

That’s how porn director John Stagliano responds when I ask him what he thinks of the 2012 GOP platform, in particular one newly added sentence:

“Current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.”

Two years ago, Stagliano was sitting in a Washington, D.C., courtroom, charged with seven counts of distributing obscenity.

Today, he’s a free man, after federal court judge Richard J. Leon “dismissed with prejudice” several of the counts and for the remaining counts “granted the defendants’ motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29.”

But an anti-porn crusader says Mitt Romney has vowed if he’s elected president, he’ll ramp up obscenity prosecutions, a task President Obama has shown little interest in pursuing.

According to Patrick Trueman, who ran the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section at the Department of Justice under President Reagan and President George H. W. Bush and who now runs Morality in Media, an anti-porn organization, Romney intends to launch a war on porn.

In a meeting with Alex Wong, Romney’s foreign and legal policy director, Trueman says Wong told him, “Romney is sincere about this. He’s convinced this has now had a terrible effect on society, and he will enforce the law.”

And that means pornographers like Stagliano could become targets once again.

“I don’t really want to go to jail,” Stagliano says. “I’ve got a two-year-old son. And I have a daughter, as well. I don’t think she’d like that either.”

In 2007, Romney swore that if he were elected president, he would put a porn filter on every computer.

As Stagliano, a Libertarian who plans to vote for Gary Johnson, sees it, an administration that seeks to legislate its constituents’ morality is the real threat.

“My morality would be based on, as long as you don’t harm somebody, anything should be permitted,” Stagliano tells me. “The government can’t solve our problems.”

As Trueman sees it, porn is a scourge, and the current status is “pandemic.”

“When I was at the Department of Justice, we were vigorously prosecuting this, and the reason why is because people were demanding it,” he recalls.

Today, porn is ubiquitous, and “The nature of today’s pornographers have changed,” Trueman says. “What you’ve got are the white collar pornographers. These companies know there’s hundreds of millions to be made.”

X-rated content has proved lucrative for big businesses like hotel chains not typically associated with porn. In his bid for the presidential seat, Romney resigned from the board of the Marriott hotel chain, with which he has close ties, and Marriott has announced its intention to phase out adult content.

Trueman believes porn is eroding the very fiber that holds America together: ruining marriages, altering brains, breaking down inhibitions.

“You’ll never do away with all of it, but we have an untreated pandemic of harm, and you have to do something about it,” he pronounces.

Ask Santa Monica-based Roger Diamond what he thinks of devoting more government dollars to obscenity prosecutions, and he’ll tell you, “Oh, that’s really a waste of money.”

For the last five years, Diamond has represented Ira Isaacs, a Los Angeles-based pornographer the Bush administration’s now-disbanded Obscenity Prosecution Task Force at the DoJ indicted for distributing and producing scat and bestiality videos.

Earlier this year, Isaacs was convicted, despite his arguments, through multiple trials, that his eye-popping videos were not obscene, but art.

What it obscene?

Potter Stewart said, “I know it when I see it“; the Miller Test sought to locate it. To be found obscene, and therefore not protected by the First Amendment, a work must appeal to prurient interests according to community standards, depict sexual activity in an offensive way, and be wholly lacking in scientific, artistic, political or literary value.

Some may say Isaacs’ oeuvre is beyond the pale, but that doesn’t mean he should be imprisoned for it, Diamond argues.

“I find it personally offensive,” Diamond confesses when I ask him what he thinks of Isaacs’ movies, “but I think people have the right to produce it and watch it. I think that’s essential to our freedom.”

Not only do obscenity prosecutions squander resources, “It would also put a chill in Southern California,” Diamond says. “The economy in Southern California is based in a large part on the adult film industry. They employ a lot of people.”

When I reach Isaacs, he’s awaiting sentencing.

I interviewed him several years ago. Back then, he was nearly elated at the prospect of a courtroom battle over his right to create what he called “shock art” and which he compared to Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain. Now he sounds defeated, almost broken.

“They wore me down,” he admits.

I ask him how he felt when he was convicted this spring.

“It was very, very surreal obviously,” Isaacs says. “I’ve always likened myself to Josef K. from [Kafka's] The Trial, and his fate at the end wasn’t so good either. I wasn’t surprised. I wasn’t shocked. It’s almost not about you anymore. It’s, like, outside you. It’s like a surreal view of myself.”

Guilty on five counts, Isaacs speculates he could be sentenced to five to seven years for each count.

How does he feel about going to prison at 61?

“It’s a big adventure when you do big political things like I did,” he says. “These are the risks you have to take. I have to do the time. I accept the responsibility. And if that means going to prison, I do it. That’s just the way it is. It doesn’t scare me.”

As for regrets, “I regret not putting enough Bach music behind the movies,” he announces. “My only regrets are artistic regrets.”

Stagliano estimates he spent around $900,000 defending himself. And Isaacs?

“I’m totally broke,” he laments. “I’m convicted. I’m being evicted. I’ve pretty much run out of money. I have no income, and I can’t seem to get past that. And that’s what’s frustrating. Who’s going to hire a felon who’s going to be in prison in two months?”

Despite the fact that his “2 Girls 1 Cup” defense didn’t work, he’s trying to focus on the bright side.

“Who knows how it turns out,” he says. “I might be writing a book and become the darling of late night TV. I think if I’m in prison, I’ll have plenty of time to write it. I think it would make a good story. There’s sex in it. The media’s in it. I think it has all the things for at least a TV movie.”

Isaacs has spoken with Max Hardcore — real name: Paul Little — who spent two years in prison for distributing his notoriously provocative brand of pornographic content that a Tampa, Florida, jury deemed obscene.

“He was very encouraging,” Isaacs relates. “‘Prison’s not so bad.’ Max is a great guy.”

Isaacs mentions Martha Stewart. “If all these people can get through it,” he decides. “I think I’ll get through it just fine.”

I ask Isaacs if he thinks he went too far.

“I don’t think I went far enough,” he declares.

Until his sentencing, he has plenty of time to ponder an art installation he’d like to do. Visitors to a gallery enter a room, where his explicit videos are playing on the walls. A video camera records the observers’ reactions as they watch, and the footage of their responses is streamed live on the internet and projected onto the front exterior wall of the gallery.

Meanwhile, the industry’s performers are considering their votes carefully.

Lisa Ann is best known for portraying Sarah Palin in an adult video titled “Who’s Nailin’ Palin?”

During the Republican National Convention, she performed her Palin routine at a Tampa, Florida, strip club called Thee DollHouse.

“It was a perfect weekend,” she says. “It’s a very simple costume, but it’s something that everyone enjoys, whether they find it funny or really liked Palin.”

I ask if she’s considered performing as Ann Romney.

“The only two people I’ve done are Sarah Palin and Tina Fey,” she says. “After that point, I was like, I want to leave my parodies right here. I don’t want to beat a dead horse.”

Come November, she’ll be casting her vote for Obama.

“I think Romney wants to take us back about 125 years,” she says. She has faith her audience will prevail at the polls. “That voter who votes also watches porn, and that voter doesn’t want to lose their right watch porn.”

Porn star Sovereign Syre, who’s been in the business about a year and only does girl-girl scenes, is more philosophical about the matter.

I ask if she’s familiar with the 2012 GOP platform.

“Their Mein Kampf?” she asks.

In recent years, the definition of pornographer has changed, and the porn star who used to go to the San Fernando Valley to find XXX fame can become a sex star on the internet from the privacy of her own home with the right web cam girl handle.

Now producing adult content herself, Syre is aware a new regime could make her a target for federal prosecutors.

As part of Darling House, a collective that produces adult content and bills itself as “The Other American Dream,” Syre is part of a new generation of digital pornographers who “find themselves having to navigate” this new porn world.

“When someone like Romney says they’re going to tackle obscenity, that scares me,” Syre confesses. “People go to jail for years. The consequences are very real.”

In her view, the porn industry regulates itself. “We’ve created our own system of checks and balances,” she says. “There’s already self-regulation in place.”

That said, not all is well in Porn Valley. The proliferation of free, pirated adult content on the web, the recession, and a series of debates over condom usage and STDs in the industry have hurt porn’s bottom line.

“Porn is an industry that’s seriously in trouble,” she says. “It’s going through a massive restructuring. A new business model has to emerge, but no one knows what that’s going to be.”

Syre is convinced that “trying to legislate porn when [people are] posting naked photos of themselves on Twitter” is a waste of time and resources that’s woefully out of sync with our times. “Caligula would blush at what you can download for free on your computer.”

In the end, she says, porn people are like everyone else and working in porn is just another job.

“We’re not alien mutant creatures,” she tells me. “We’re normal people, and this is a job. As much as people want to rally against porn, nearly everyone I’ve met in my life has consumed it at least once.”

Prosecutions, she says, could drive porn underground, and the outcome would be dire.

“If it all goes underground, performers are putting their health at risk, and, just like any industry, you’re going to have outlaws there,” she warns. “The product is going to get more degrading and weird because no one will self-regulate.”

Porn will never die, Syre says, “it’s just going to become increasingly dangerous” if Romney gets elected and his administration heads to the Valley and starts hunting pornographers.

 

[The Yak]

Porn = good
Romney = bad

 

[Johan]

Romney wants to "put America back to work". Therefore, he's gonna put the entire adult industry, tens of thousands of people, out of work !

 

[TheSpokenWheel]

Trueman believes porn is eroding the very fiber that holds America together: ruining marriages, altering brains, breaking down inhibitions.

“You’ll never do away with all of it, but we have an untreated pandemic of harm, and you have to do something about it,” he pronounces.

Funny, that's exactly the same way I think about the type of people behind this bullshit.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

It's fucked up that they want to enforce morality, and shove their moral agenda down our throats, but I would rather have guns, then porn. Obama will go after guns if he's re-elected.

 

[TheSpokenWheel]

It's fucked up that they want to enforce morality, and shove their moral agenda down our throats, but I would rather have guns, then porn. Obama will go after guns if he's re-elected.

because once you have the guns, the porn's free?

 

[Rattrap]

Trueman believes porn is eroding the very fiber that holds America together: ruining marriages, altering brains, breaking down inhibitions.

“You’ll never do away with all of it, but we have an untreated pandemic of harm, and you have to do something about it,” he pronounces.

Funny, that's exactly the same way I think about the type of people behind this bullshit.

I was about to say the same thing...

I honestly think it's folks like these - over the many decades of this country's life - that have poisoned culture enough to create the US' seeming monopoly on 'greatest number of violent psychopaths'. People point to our gun crime as a argument to get rid of guns, but many other western-industrialized countries have tons of guns and don't go shooting each other left and right. It's the wrong debate entirely; we should be asking, 'why do we have so many folks so damaged that they're gunning down theaters/school campuses etc?' I blame Trueman and his ilk. Seriously. And here's why*:

What's the second-strongest drive in humans, after self-preservation? Sexuality. It's core to biological life.
So what happens when a culture does all it can to repress and outlaw every outlet to this very basic need (everything from circumcision to abstinence-only sex ed to trying to outlaw porn)? Inhuman people. This is part of the reason you'll never catch me voting Republican; I believe the social-conservative agenda is not only wrong, but harmful and dangerous (I'd love me a fiscally conservative platform, but alas, the Republicans haven't been any better - worse, in fact - than the Democrats on this during my lifetime. Suffice to say, I won't be voting for either).

My two cents, anyway.



* There are, of course, many many many factors to be taken into consideration when looking at the causes of violence and crazy-folk, and I absolutely do not mean to infer that this one cause is to blame for all of it. But it is, at first glance, the most striking difference I see between the US and other places I've experienced.

 

[xfire]

It's fucked up that they want to enforce morality, and shove their moral agenda down our throats, but I would rather have guns, then porn. Obama will go after guns if he's re-elected.

Guns are explicitly protected by the 2nd Amendment. Porn has no such champion. Coupled with the fact that Obama has actually expanded gun rights, perhaps you should reconsider your position. Democrats are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Rey C.]

It's fucked up that they want to enforce morality, and shove their moral agenda down our throats, but I would rather have guns, then porn. Obama will go after guns if he's re-elected.

I would rather decide for myself in both cases. Thus far, all of the rampant fears about Obama "going after our guns" have proved to be completely unfounded. And considering that Obama would be re-elected President, not dictator or emperor, I'm curious as to how he could accomplish this, even if that was his goal. When I ask that question, I very seldom get a clear, logical answer, outside of some sort of executive order. But in 2014 there will be another round of Congressional elections. And since support for gun control is currently at its lowest point than at any time in modern American history, exactly who are the people in Congress who would support this sort of measure???

You say Obama will go after guns. IMO, that is hyperbole. I feel that he *may* go after guns, as that's probably what he'd like to do. But I don't feel that he will, because if there is anything we have learned about Obama, it's that he is a politician who has an eye on history. And since the gun control fight is a guaranteed way to ruin whatever legacy he may have, I personally don't see it as very likely that he'll go in that direction - not when the economy and unemployment will continue to dominate the headlines at least for the next couple of years, no matter who is elected. And if he did it, he'd be walking that path largely alone (Dems outside of CA and the northeast wouldn't go with him).

But one other thing I also believe is true: there are a great many people who feel the same way that you do - and they've felt that way since Obama was elected. That has contributed to the stocks of Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson soaring. I don't have a problem profiting from other people's fears (unfounded or not). So if it continues to seem that Obama will be re-elected, I'll probably pick up some SWHC and RGR, as speculative trades, in the next few weeks.

Romney just joined the NRA in 2004 or so. But as governor of Massachusetts, he often criticized gun ownership and even signed a bill outlawing "assault weapons" - so it seems that he is a very recent convert to the cause. As for porn, if elected POTUS, there is no doubt in my mind that he'll follow the direction of the social conservatives that he'd need to form a conservative coalition. And he'll dance to whatever tune they write for him. They're already a major, major part of his advisory committee. So with Romney, we'd be treated to another episode of Ed Meese, IMO. Expect another attack on civil liberties. And that I am against... no matter whether the person doing it is a donkey or an elephant.


There was a guy who was interviewed back during the 2008 election cycle. He was a guy from North Carolina. And at first blush, you might have thought he was some kind of backwoods redneck. He claimed that he'd always been a Republican. But he was unemployed because his company shut down and moved to Mexico. And he said something that has continued to stick with me. Interesting quote (IMO): "I like my guns, but I love my family, so I'm votin' for Obama."

He may feel differently about Obama now, as many people do. But it's more important to understand his initial motivation for going that route. If a person is going to be a one-issue voter, whatever final decision they end up making, hopefully most people would put the interests and welfare of their family well ahead of whether or not they can buy an AR or an AK. Same with porn. Same with abortion.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Guns are explicitly protected by the 2nd Amendment. Porn has no such champion. Coupled with the fact that Obama has actually expanded gun rights, perhaps you should reconsider your position. Democrats are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment.

Some are...he is not. He just knows it would be political suicide to do anything against the 2nd Amendment right know, but if he's elected again, he'll have nothing to lose...he won't be running for a third term.

I really, REALLY just do not trust this guy, or his cronies, and their views on this subject.

I know Romney's a cluster fuck...but this guy just puts my brain in a bad place. I can't see that changing.

I also look at it like this....we'll use abortion as an example, and for the sake of argument, we'll assume that ALL of our leaders, on all levels are shady and manipulative, in their ability to work the law to their advantage, and exploit their knowledge of how to push their agenda.

If Romeny is elected, he will try to, and possibly succeed at outlawing abortion, and birth control. The next president, will be very likely to over turn that law. However, if Obama is elected, he'll try very hard to take our guns, and the next president most likely WILL NOT try to over turn that law, because no matter what letter is next to their name, they all really want the same thing....disarmed sheeple, that are scared shitless of their leaders. People that are completely reliant on the government, and are either ultra rich, and on their level, or ultra poor, dependent on the leaders for everything. Unable to demand anything, and cowering in a corner for fear of retribution.

I know that may sound extreme, and whacky to many, or all of you...but I just can't seem to see how they're doing anything to make it better for us. Things aren't getting better, because they don't want them to.

 

[Johan]

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has actually been more active than Obama on gun control — albeit during his time in Massachusetts. Since leaving office, he has moved away from those positions.

While running for Senate in Massachusetts in 1994, Romney supported background checks and a ban on some assault weapons. “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” he said. Running for governor in 2002, he said, “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts — I support them. I won’t chip away at them. I believe they help protect us, and provide for our safety.”

As governor, in 2004, signed an assault-weapons ban in the state. However, that law won support from some gun-rights advocates by making it easier to get and renew a firearms license. Romney also raised the state’s gun-registration fee from $25 to $75.

Romney joined the National Rifle Association in 2006, a few months before launching his first presidential bid. “I’m a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms,” he said in 2007.

Pressed by NBC’s Tim Russert on the issue that year, he said, “I support Second Amendment rights, but I don’t line up 100 percent with the NRA. They take some positions that are different than mine.” He continued to support the assault-weapons ban, reaffirming that position in a 2008 debate.

However, in a subsequent interview with conservative bloggers, Romney said, “I don’t support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose. There’s no new legislation that I’m aware of or have heard of that I would support.”

Romney’s position has not changed notably since. In a recent speech to the NRA, he said, “We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners.” He suggested that in a second term, Obama would do more to restrict gun rights.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-gun-control/2012/07/20/gJQAwMpNyW_blog.html

Now, he's saying he is not to create new laws. But, he's campaigning, he's a politician, he knows suggesting he would do so would be a political suicide. And when you look at what he did as governor, it seems he likes the 2 amendfment to allow him tu carry guns but when it comes to people carrying guns, things get different...

 

[Rey C.]

However, if Obama is elected, he'll try very hard to take our guns,

Rev, I know you're a gun enthusiast. And unlike how Scott tried to put me in a box about this issue (despite the fact that I've been around guns, been shooting guns and been in the NRA for longer than he's been on this Earth - and not to be cruel, but he really doesn't know that much about guns or hunting anyway), I am not trying to put you in a political box here. But you say that Obama will try (not may try, but will try) to take our guns. So please explain to me by what political or legal mechanism he would be able to do that. Let's say that a person has a legally obtained AK variant in his gun safe today. You, I'm sure, are aware that the President cannot pass laws on his own. So what I'm asking you to explain to me is this: by what means could Obama legally seize that firearm? It really is a sincere question, because I really don't know.

 

[Red Spyder]

Sure, a second Obama administration term will be awesome for free speech, right?

And anyway....

A picture is worth 1000 words, so that's about 3000 up there.

Reading, listening, watching libs telling all the awful things that conservatives "will do" is just like reading, listening or watching conservaties telling all the awful things that libs "will do"

 

[xfire]

Reading, listening, watching libs telling all the awful things that conservatives "will do" is just like reading, listening or watching conservaties telling all the awful things that libs "will do"

You should read my original post a little closer. That's "conservatives" telling the awful things "conservatives" will do.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Rev, I know you're a gun enthusiast. And unlike how Scott tried to put me in a box about this issue (despite the fact that I've been around guns, been shooting guns and been in the NRA for longer than he's been on this Earth - and not to be cruel, but he really doesn't know that much about guns or hunting anyway), I am not trying to put you in a political box here. But you say that Obama will try (not may try, but will try) to take our guns. So please explain to me by what political or legal mechanism he would be able to do that. Let's say that a person has a legally obtained AK variant in his gun safe today. You, I'm sure, are aware that the President cannot pass laws on his own. So what I'm asking you to explain to me is this: by what means could Obama legally seize that firearm? It really is a sincere question, because I really don't know.

Through treaties with the UN, thus nullifying the Constitution, and America's sovereignty. By seizing any opportunity, to enact marshal law, like they did when Katrina hit New Orleans. I find a good many of the things, the NRA says, to not be 100% truthful...even though I am a lifetime member, but some of those people allegedly have not gotten their firearms back...the mayor took them, under marshal law....and was allowed to under a president that let the assault weapons law sunset! Imagine how eager obama is. Look at who he's surrounded by. Biden was the architect of the first ban. Hillary attends all of the anti gun summits held in New York, at UN head quarters...with bloomberg.

To be honest, God knows what else...point is, they want them, and they don't want us to have them, and I don't trust them one little bit. I don't trust any of them...even romney wants to enact another assault weapons ban...and the nra is endorsing him!!

I just see them manipulating laws, and loopholes, as all of them do...but this group just sits wrong with me...I can't expect you to accept my gut feeling as an answer, but a lot of it has to do with that.

If I can think of other things, I'll do my best to pass them along, and believe me, I have no need to lump this into an "r" or a "d"...this is a persons mission, not the party's. Or I should say, this group of dems, not all dems.

 

[Red Spyder]

You should read my original post a little closer. That's "conservatives" telling the awful things "conservatives" will do.

Yes, and in that case you guys have a great 1st amendment case. You know, the People vs. Larry Flynt kind of deal. Now, I am a conservative. Thing is, if you believe that conservatives are one monolythic, we all believe the same shit kind of deal, you're wrong. Some of us conservatives have some rather peculiar liberal or at least libertarian leanings, for example: Pat Robertson says legalize da' weed? :eek:

But anyway, with the economy, the mess in the middle east, and high unemployment numbers and gas prices, I think making porn illegal would probably be way in Mr. Mitten's agenda. It sounds to me more scaremongering by some libs.

 

[xfire]

Yes, and in that case you guys have a great 1st amendment case. You know, the People vs. Larry Flynt kind of deal. Now, I am a conservative. Thing is, if you believe that conservatives are one monolythic, we all believe the same shit kind of deal, you're wrong. Some of us conservatives have some rather peculiar liberal or at least libertarian leanings, for example: Pat Robertson says legalize da' weed? :eek:

But anyway, with the economy, the mess in the middle east, and high unemployment numbers and gas prices, I think making porn illegal would probably be way in Mr. Mitten's agenda. It sounds to me more scaremongering by some libs.

I don't think you're conservative, as defined by the tea 'tards.

 

[Red Spyder]

I don't think you're conservative, as defined by the tea 'tards.

I have attended Tea Party rallies, though not for a couple of years, not that active in the Tea party now as I was back in '09-'10 (for the mid term elections). I do agree with their view on government waste and abuse, that government has grown too large to the point of unsustainability (long word there, impressed yet?) and especially their views on taxes. I have come to the conclusion that conservatives see taxes as a way of paying for the government's limited duties while liberals see taxes as a way of "leveling the playing field", in other words, if you get too rich that's unfair therefore we need to cut you down to size.

Now, to the point of the thread, it's not only conservatives you got to watch for trampling on your first amendment rights. That picture I posted up there is from the bluest of the blue states: California. Now, if Mr. Mittens really wants to ban porn, there is a process he has to follow, or do you expect him to issue an executive order to ban it? Who do you think he is? Obama? There is a process he would have to follow, a very long and very wasteful process and like I said before, I'm sure he'll have too much to do to waste time on banning porn.

And by the way, I did hear about the "banning porn" BEFORE with G. W. Bush. I even saw an ad with some chicks (one of them was Sunny Leone) saying that they were shaving their bushes because "Bush wants to ban porn". I'll go google around for some porn to see if he really did ban it.

[5 minutes and one :rubbel: later]

Oh, Bush didn't ban porn! I don't think Mr. Mittens will either.
Either way, an argument saying that Mr. Mittens will ban porn is not going to convince me to not vote for him. In the vast scheme of things, porn isn't that important to me. I will vote for him not because of his views on porn, but because I don't agree with Obama's economic policies. Now, you may say that Obama has improved things but I'm not convinced he has. I only have to look at two things: the unemployment number and gas prices, and as I'm sure you know, gas prices will affect the price of just about everything else. Gas prices go up, so does the price for food.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Now, you may say that Obama has improved things but I'm not convinced he has. I only have to look at two things: the unemployment number and gas prices, and as I'm sure you know, gas prices will affect the price of just about everything else. Gas prices go up, so does the price for food.

More so the price of fuel oil, and diesel fuel (trucks/trains ect.) which isn't really as relative as the fact that, it takes less time, and effort to refine those types of fuel, but the cost per gallon is higher. In my area, about $0.40 a gallon. The point being, if they inflate the cost of goods, without providing us with the cost of living, we will be dependent upon them, thus, under their thumb.

At least that's how I see it.

 

[xfire]

I have attended Tea Party rallies, though not for a couple of years, not that active in the Tea party now as I was back in '09-'10 (for the mid term elections). I do agree with their view on government waste and abuse, that government has grown too large to the point of unsustainability (long word there, impressed yet?) and especially their views on taxes. I have come to the conclusion that conservatives see taxes as a way of paying for the government's limited duties while liberals see taxes as a way of "leveling the playing field", in other words, if you get too rich that's unfair therefore we need to cut you down to size.

You have a deluded view on taxation. The truth about "conservative" tax strategy is they want to eliminate the social safety net that President Roosevelt passed with the New Deal. That's been their real agenda since Reagan.

http://www.thenation.com/article/169882/how-paul-ryan-would-decimate-new-deal#
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57497502/the-pledge-grover-norquists-hold-on-the-gop/

Now, to the point of the thread, it's not only conservatives you got to watch for trampling on your first amendment rights. That picture I posted up there is from the bluest of the blue states: California. Now, if Mr. Mittens really wants to ban porn, there is a process he has to follow, or do you expect him to issue an executive order to ban it? Who do you think he is? Obama? There is a process he would have to follow, a very long and very wasteful process and like I said before, I'm sure he'll have too much to do to waste time on banning porn.

And by the way, I did hear about the "banning porn" BEFORE with G. W. Bush. I even saw an ad with some chicks (one of them was Sunny Leone) saying that they were shaving their bushes because "Bush wants to ban porn". I'll go google around for some porn to see if he really did ban it.

[5 minutes and one :rubbel: later]

Oh, Bush didn't ban porn! I don't think Mr. Mittens will either.
Either way, an argument saying that Mr. Mittens will ban porn is not going to convince me to not vote for him. In the vast scheme of things, porn isn't that important to me.

You're painfully uninformed on the topic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/mitt-romney-aide-promises_n_1687210.html

Republican Mitt Romney insists his No. 1 job is fixing the economy but a former Reagan administration anti-porn prosecutor says the candidate's campaign has assured him that he also will "vigorously" crack down on pornographers if he is elected president.

Patrick Trueman, a former head of the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section and now the head of Morality in Media, told the conservative Daily Caller that he was quietly promised that fighting porn will be a top priority in a Romney White House.

Trueman said he and another anti-porn prosecutor from the 1980s Justice Department, Bob Flores, met earlier this year with Alex Wong, Romney's foreign and legal policy director..

“Wong assured us that Romney is very concerned with this, and that if he’s elected these laws will be enforced,” Trueman told the website. ”They promised to vigorously enforce federal adult obscenity laws.”

Around the time Trueman says he received those assurances, Romney signed Morality in Media's anti-porn pledge along with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, whom he was still battling for the GOP nomination. Since then, he hasn't mentioned the issue very often.

Romney seemed to say the right words for Trueman in 2007, when he was campaigning for president in Iowa the last time. "We got to clean up the water that our kids are swimming in," he said in a TV ad. "And by that I mean the pornography, the drug culture, the violence, the sex, the perversion that bombards them day in and day out. So I want to make sure we enforce our obscenity laws."

Romney has promised that if elected president he would require every new computer be sold with a porn filter.

Despite those tough words, Romney's campaign has taken campaign cash from the head of a company that produces hard-core pornography. And gay porn filmmaker Michael Lucas, who has endorsed Romney, told the Daily Caller, “I don’t see any danger coming from Romney when it comes to porn. It’s just not there."

There may be another reason Romney isn't talking up porn: he needs the support of millions of primary voters who supported Ron Paul, who did not make opposition to sexually explicit materials a campaign plank.

I don't agree with Obama's economic policies. Now, you may say that Obama has improved things but I'm not convinced he has. I only have to look at two things: the unemployment number and gas prices, and as I'm sure you know, gas prices will affect the price of just about everything else. Gas prices go up, so does the price for food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/business/gas-prices-are-out-of-any-presidents-control.html

EVERYONE knows it’s dangerous to ingest gasoline or to inhale its fumes. But I am starting to believe that merely thinking about the price of gasoline can damage cognitive processing. Thus I may be risking some of my precious few remaining brain cells by writing about that topic.

Here is a one-item test to see whether you are guilty of cloudy thinking about gas prices: Do you believe that they are something a president can control? Many Americans believe that the answer is yes, but any respectable economist will tell you that the answer is no.

Consider a recent poll of a panel of economists conducted by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, where I teach. (Disclosure: I am a member of the panel; the other respondents are well-respected economists from top universities with varying political views.) The 41 panel members were asked whether they agreed with the following statement: “Changes in U.S. gasoline prices over the past 10 years have predominantly been due to market factors rather than U.S. federal economic or energy policies.”

Not a single member of the panel disagreed with the statement.

Here is why: Oil is a global market in which America is a big consumer but a small supplier. We consume about 20 percent of the world’s oil but hold only 2 percent of the oil reserves. That means we are, in economics jargon, “price takers.” Domestic production has increased during the Obama administration, but it has had minimal effects on global prices because, as producers, we are just too small to matter much. And even if domestic oil companies further increased production, they would sell to the highest global bidder.

If you’re not convinced by economic theory or the opinions of economists, consider some recent history. Presumably, no one would call President George W. Bush unfriendly to the oil industry. Yet the price of gasoline rose steadily during most of his administration. In February 2001, just after Mr. Bush took office, the average price of regular gasoline was $1.45 a gallon. By June 2008, that price had risen to $4.05. Still think presidents and oil-friendly policies can determine oil prices?

It’s true that by the end of the Bush presidency, prices had fallen back to $1.69, as oil prices plummeted with the rest of the global economy. But I think we can all agree that a global financial crisis is too high a price to pay for cheap gasoline.

Still, Republican presidential candidates are blaming the policies of President Obama for the current high level of gasoline prices. Mitt Romney has said that the president should fire three of his cabinet members for failing to get oil prices down.

(On Friday, the president moved forward in imposing sanctions that are limiting the supply of Iranian oil in world markets.)

Newt Gingrich, meanwhile, has promised us $2.50-a-gallon gasoline. But if we can suspend the law of supply and demand, why stop with gasoline? Why not $2.50 for one-carat diamonds, steak dinners and 18-year-old Scotch whiskey?

Although the United States cannot unilaterally lower the price of oil, it can reduce its consumption, by using oil more efficiently and by developing alternative sources of fuel. For example, the Obama administration has raised the corporate average fuel economy standards imposed on automakers. If consumers buy more fuel-efficient cars and trucks, demand for gasoline falls, as does the burden imposed by high gas prices. But while such rules help, they are not the best way of achieving societal goals.

A better approach would be to gradually raise the gasoline tax to levels similar to those in Western Europe, where fuel-efficient cars are the norm. N. Gregory Mankiw — the Harvard economist who advises Mr. Romney and is a fellow contributor to the Economic View column — has long advocated such a policy. I agree with him, as do most other economists.

For evidence, note that the economists in that same University of Chicago poll were asked whether they agreed with this statement: “A tax on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as ‘corporate average fuel economy’ requirements for automobiles.”

On this question, there was just a single negative vote. Yet in our current political climate, making the sensible suggestion that we gradually raise the tax on gasoline — or impose a broader system of carbon taxes — is ridiculed, and no one running for president can safely make such a proposal. At least two of the candidates have shown that they understand the underlying economics. In the past, both President Obama and Mr. Romney have acknowledged that higher gas prices have an upside: they give car owners the right incentives, and if the high prices stem in part from higher fuel taxes, the deficit can be trimmed. But such obviously true statements are now considered almost unpatriotic, equivalent to cheering against the U.S.A. in the Olympics.

THE confused public debate on this topic is representative of a more general problem. The voting public is not very good at attributing credit and blame to presidents. They get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when things go badly. The same applies to coaches, C.E.O.’s, parents and anyone else in charge. Leaders are important but not omnipotent.

So, to evaluate a leader, we must determine the factors over which that leader has a modicum of control. If you hate the Obama health care program and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, by all means give the president a big share of the blame. And if you love them, give him some credit. What makes no sense is to blame the president for rising gas prices, where he has virtually no control, but not to give him some credit for rising stock prices and an improved labor market, domains where his policies — along with those of the Federal Reserve and Congress — are more likely to have had an effect.

When we make our choice on Election Day, we should consider that the winner will have an important impact on policies in many areas: health care, distribution of the tax burden, Supreme Court nominations, and abortion rights. The candidates’ differences on those issues should be driving our decision, not the wishful thinking that a president can simply lower the price of gasoline. Or Scotch, alas.

When you decide to make some coherent and cogent arguments, try again.