Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on June 18, 2007, 01:40:37 PM
-
Whos afraid of the big bad islamist?
Suicide attacks are being encouraged again, presumably against the United Kingdom, because the Queen of England has awarded Salman Rushdie the title of Knight. If the UK will withdraw the title, then Islam will not promote suicide attacks against the UK.
Heres a snippet: "If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet, then it is justified," Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister Ijaz-ul-Haq told the national assembly.
The story also states that there are 1.5 billion muslims. Thats alot of muslims.
I just wish our muslim friends on the other side of the aisle would respect how important the freedom of expression is to us. We believe they should be able to express their religious faith, and we would not blow them up for denying our savior Christ (their loss, not ours). We all got to live and let live.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070618164324.minbd9dd&show_article=1
What should the Queen do? What will the Queen do?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
What should the Queen do? What will the Queen do?
Nothing and nothing.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
What should the Queen do? What will the Queen do?
After death of Freddie Mercury, I don't know.
-
good question. will Britain stand firm? or fold up like a cheap Miami beach chair and withdraw Knighthood from Rushdie? think of the awful message that would send to the extremists....
-
Now Yeager, we all know that Christianity is just as bad as Islam, need I remind you that almost 1000 years ago the Pope responded to the Byzantine emperor's call for help in repulsing the Turkish invaders with a contra-biblical call for a Crusade to recapture Palestine? Additionally, I understand that the President of the Women in the Church group of an undisclosed Southern Baptist Church has warned the Queen that if she tries to knight Richard Dawkins they will not invite her to tea for "a spell" and may not talk to her if they accidentally make eye contact in the local supermarket . Some members of the group have criticized the stance, saying "there's no need to be like that" and "this would never have happened when Laney was president." ;)
Seriously though, now and for the for the foreseeable future we live in the age of Jihad, and as the Spanish found out the hard way, giving in to the demands of Islamic militants does not actually cause them to stop blowing you up. My hope is that we will come to our senses and end the practice of seriously limiting the freedom of speech and worship of Westerners in an attempt to pacify Islamists. If riots in Islamabad and death threats from the ummah and its leaders become the reason we do or don't knight individuals, do or don't publish cartoons, and so on, then we will already have lost our liberty. What's next, should we execute apostate Muslims like Rushdie ourselves lest Islamists become offended at our allowing him to continue to live contrary to Sharia law? It's time we decided that tantrums, threats, and even attacks on their part are not going to cause us to conform to their ideology.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
age of Jihad, and as the Spanish found out the hard way, giving in to the demands of Islamic militants does not actually cause them to stop blowing you up.
The sad thing is the next logical step to this will be escalation via christian 'extremism' - a 2nd crusade perhaps.
-
I think not Vulcan if we discount the lose cannons.
-
Originally posted by Hap
I think not Vulcan if we discount the lose cannons.
TBH I wouldn't if the christians had a go, I'd back em in fact. I'm getting tired of the islamo-facism that is spreading around the world.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
The sad thing is the next logical step to this will be escalation via christian 'extremism' - a 2nd crusade perhaps.
there has been more than one crusade.
<>
it is time for the last crusade, this time it will not be with knights in armor but with cruise missiles and smart bombs.
-
I think not Vulcan if we discount the lose cannons.
====
Elaborate!
-
Originally posted by john9001
it is time for the last crusade, this time it will not be with knights in armor but with cruise missiles and smart bombs.
You are absofreakinglutely nuts.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
The sad thing is the next logical step to this will be escalation via christian 'extremism' - a 2nd crusade perhaps.
We're already there. The main difference between our leaders and their leaders is the name of their imaginary friend.
-
Why not a crusade?
Are you not aware that when a mosque is built in a new territory that territory is then in the eyes of Islam part of Islam? I think almost every state in the lower 48 has a mosque now. We the non muslim citizens of these states are infidels and by sharia law fair game to be killed on sight in our public streets. And sadly that is being taught in mosques here in the good O'l U.S. of A. Heck based on this tradition Islam has grounds to declare the U.S. Islamic territory as of now.
But hey, they are potential voters and social security fund taxable workers before they blow anything up or begin following sharia law in the streets per Mohammed don't cha know.......:noid
-
You are absofreakinglutely nuts.
====
with all due respect: Don't be so naive as to think this could not possibly happen. You would be well advised to start thinking along these lines: what do I (you and the rest of us) need to do to survive in a world at war.
As far as Mosques in my neck of the woods: If it ever came down to a declaration of Sharia law in the United States, the mosques would be gone in a heartbeat.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
As far as Mosques in my neck of the woods: If it ever came down to a declaration of Sharia law in the United States, the mosques would be gone in a heartbeat.
lol I cannot ever see that happening. The Musilms tried to instill Sharia laws already in Canada and the UK...bastions of liberalism that THEY are ;) .....and it was met with a resounding "NO!" there.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You are absofreakinglutely nuts.
====
with all due respect: Don't be so naive as to think this could not possibly happen. You would be well advised to start thinking along these lines: what do I (you and the rest of us) need to do to survive in a world at war.
As far as Mosques in my neck of the woods: If it ever came down to a declaration of Sharia law in the United States, the mosques would be gone in a heartbeat.
I think Jesus is going to come back and save us before it comes to this.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
I think Jesus is going to come back and save us before it comes to this.
Dano,
Shhhhhhhhhh.......dont cha know muslims are members of boards like this with shadow accounts so they can take names against the day they all get the big word from mecca.................:noid
-
Originally posted by Yeager
As far as Mosques in my neck of the woods: If it ever came down to a declaration of Sharia law in the United States, the mosques would be gone in a heartbeat.
word
-
i'm getting pretty tired of hearing this religion of peace put out death fatwas and threatening violence over things like this.
muslims put cartoons in arabic newspapers every day depicting jews and christians as satanic pigs who drink the blood of muslim children and so on, but throw a tantrum and threaten violence when a danish cartoon depicts mohamad as a violent person with a bomb for a hat.
ironically, Rushdie's book only told the truth - and pointed out how violent these people are. So what do they do? put out a violent murder fatwa on him, basically proving his point for him.
Rushdie deserved the knighthood for snagging that very good looking indian woman for his wife anyway.
-
Is the insane or what? Scarey stuff....
"Any attack using Weapons of Mass Destruction against the United States, by any organization affiliated with, or acting on behalf of the Muslim faith, will be construed by the American Government as an attack by all of the islamic faithful against all Americans. Such an attack will result in a nuclear retaliatory strike against all sacred shrines of islam and all nations that are theocracratic Islamic governments, destroying them and all their inhabitants, and rendering the ground around them uninhabbitable for 10,000 years."
-
Amen
-
I'm more afraid of the Religious Right in America than some Islamic extremist group in the middle east.
-
I'm more afraid of the Religious Right in America
====
Tammy Faye scared me too, but I overcame my fear of people with foot long eyelashes :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by john9001
there has been more than one crusade.
<>
it is time for the last crusade, this time it will not be with knights in armor but with cruise missiles and smart bombs.
Makes sense.. we don't want them telling us what to do and blowing us up. So we will tell them what to do and blow them up instead.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Makes sense.. we don't want them telling us what to do and blowing us up. So we will tell them what to do and blow them up instead.
I dunno, as a rational human being - I trust myself with nuclear weapons. I just don't trust anyone with nuclear weapons who thinks its fine to massa**** people with C4 belts, assassinate anyone who can possibly have an intelligent dialog on current affairs in the world, or have a discussion on their faith and beliefs.
At least with the Soviet Union, the U.S. and USSR were rational actors who knew the consequences of war with each other. These guys, they're logic can be summed up in "Blame the Jews!"; "Blame the U.S.!"; but never themselves or the people they look to as their leaders of Government (despotic or not) or, dare I say it with the risk of being knifed by some Egyptian from Sacramento - their religious interpretation and value system.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
I dunno, as a rational human being - I trust myself with nuclear weapons. I just don't trust anyone with nuclear weapons who thinks its fine to massa**** people with C4 belts, assassinate anyone who can possibly have an intelligent dialog on current affairs in the world, or have a discussion on their faith and beliefs.
At least with the Soviet Union, the U.S. and USSR were rational actors who knew the consequences of war with each other. These guys, they're logic can be summed up in "Blame the Jews!"; "Blame the U.S.!"; but never themselves or the people they look to as their leaders of Government (despotic or not) or, dare I say it with the risk of being knifed by some Egyptian from Sacramento - their religious interpretation and value system.
Kinda funny you think that..
Iraq wasn't even close to have nuclear bombs..
Yet Iran is getting closer everyday .. North Korea has denoted test bombs yet why aren't we attacking them?
You trust little Kim Jong and The holy Ali Khamenei with a nuclear bombs?
If we are going to attack in fear of a nuclear threat why did we not attack the real nuclear threats?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Now Yeager, we all know that Christianity is just as bad as Islam
If you're talking threat levels then The Christian far right are much better placed to take power in the USA than the Islamists. If you're a secular type that might be quite a worry.
and as the Spanish found out the hard way, giving in to the demands of Islamic militants does not actually cause them to stop blowing you up.
Are you back on the drugs again? Spain pulled out of Iraq because it was a manifesto commitment from the PSOE in line with what the population wanted before the Madrid bombing.
[My hope is that we will come to our senses and end the practice of seriously limiting the freedom of speech and worship of Westerners in an attempt to pacify Islamists.
What rights of westerners to worship are limited in this fashion and for this reason?
If riots in Islamabad and death threats from the ummah and its leaders become the reason we do or don't knight individuals,
Which they're plainly not or are ever likely to be..
do or don't publish cartoons
You mean the cartoons that were reprinted all over the western hemisphere, right?
and so on, then we will already have lost our liberty.
Pure hyerbole, since none of the circumstances you describe have actually happened or are ever likely to.
What's next, should we execute apostate Muslims like Rushdie ourselves lest Islamists become offended at our allowing him to continue to live contrary to Sharia law?
Are you for real? The only one suggesting this is you.
It's time we decided that tantrums, threats, and even attacks on their part are not going to cause us to conform to their ideology.
We don't need to decide that because it is already the general position.
Nurse!
-
Originally posted by Curval
and it was met with a resounding "NO!" there.
That time.
June 6, 2007
Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found.
Sometime in the future that question will probably be met with a resounding "Death to the Infidels!"
:)
-
Funny Toad, it makes me laugh how that factoid gets repeated as if it has any kind of special significance. Do you really need to have the statistical effect of 2.8% of the population all giving their sons the same name spelt out to you?
Didn't you have a brain once or are you just trolling?
Linky (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp)
-
Originally posted by crockett
I'm more afraid of the Religious Right in America than some Islamic extremist group in the middle east.
I'm not. Christianity around here is mostly tempered by the reformation and enlightenment values (in effect saying "we're gonna ignore those parts of the Bible"). Islam hasn't had it's reformation yet, and such a reformation seems unlikely. Most attempts at trying to put religion into the government here in the US fail (see Dover, PA). Or when they succeed they are pretty mild and meaningless (listing the 10 commandments in a court or whatever) and ridiculed anyway.
One of the scariest things IMO is the rapid influx of hardcore muslims into Europe, where a lot of them want Sharia. They take advantage of the secularity of Europe to the utmost, demanding respect for misogyny and other very non-enlightenment ideas...but if they had a majority would vote Sharia into law and overturn those very enlightenment values. Can we afford to extend tolerance to the intolerant? How far do we go--do we allow "honor killings" as well? How about jailing gang rape victims as "adulteresses"?
Fortunately, we have a constitution here in the US.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Fortunately, we have a constitution here in the US.
Too bad our govt has seemed to misplaced it.
I'll have to quote Bill Maher..
"I'm going to start E-mailing myself a copy of the US constitution everyday in hopes the FBI will read it"
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sometime in the future that question will probably be met with a resounding "Death to the Heathens!"
:)
Fixed.
;)
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Didn't you have a brain once or are you just trolling?
Still do; it's just a much more polite and intelligent one than the one you are currently using.
:)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Sometime in the future that question will probably be met with a resounding "Death to the Heathen Bermudans!"
Fixed.
:)
-
Originally posted by john9001
it is time for the last crusade, this time it will not be with knights in armor but with cruise missiles and smart bombs.
The last crusade was 1989 and it had at least one member of the Knights Templar.
-
Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy."
And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ...
Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
Amen.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I'm more afraid of the Religious Right in America than some Islamic extremist group in the middle east.
the reality of it all, there is very little if any difference between the two groups and their followers.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by crockett
I'm more afraid of the Religious Right in America than some Islamic extremist group in the middle east.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the reality of it all, there is very little if any difference between the two groups and their followers. - Torque
just for starters:
1. honor killing of family members
2. suicide bombing of innocents
3. torture
4. sawing heads off
5. Sharia Law
6. proscriptions against democracy
7. proscriptions against innovation
8. proscriptions against images
9. proscriptions against interest loans
10. proscriptions against social mixing of the sexes
-
the reality of it all, there is very little if any difference between the two groups and their followers.
====
jeeze, what can one say in rebuttle to such thinking. Not much.
-
Originally posted by Torque
the reality of it all, there is very little if any difference between the two groups and their followers.
The books themselves are more similar than people would like to believe, but the followers are quite different in the ways that matter, depending on where you are. So in America, Christianity isn't really dangerous (usually, I admit there are exceptions). In Ireland and Rwanda and Bosnia, it is (or was). When you have pictures of the Virgin Mary strapped to the butt of your rifle as you ethnically cleanse Muslims, you have a religious problem. Islam is worse at the moment, because there doesn't seem to be a large group of Muslims who have said "OK, we're going to ignore those barbaric parts of the Koran and keep only the nice-sounding bits", as has happened with a large part of Christianity with respect to the Bible. So it is worse because they are much more free to point to scripture as they commit their atrocities (like Fred Phelps does, but on a much larger scale). And as another example, why haven't the head Mosques of the Sunni and Shia completely condemned the barbaric intra-faith fighting in Iraq? Because they believe this fight is "just". They really believe in the holy warrant for this shamefully medieval conflict.
-
Originally posted by phookat
So it is worse because they are much more free to point to scripture as they commit their atrocities (like Fred Phelps does, but on a much larger scale).
Phelps is a dipshirt and jerk of the highest magnitude but I must have missed where Phelps and his loonies blew themselves up, shot up the neighborhood with AK's or things like that.
Can you link that for me? I suspect you cannot.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Islam is worse at the moment, because there doesn't seem to be a large group of Muslims who have said "OK, we're going to ignore those barbaric parts of the Koran and keep only the nice-sounding bits", as has happened with a large part of Christianity with respect to the Bible. So it is worse because they are much more free to point to scripture as they commit their atrocities
Very true. Most of Leviticus, and much of the Old Testament in general from what I gather, pretty much is not observed in most of the Christian world. The Seven Noahide Laws are mostly unheard of, but are officially recognized by Congress (oh, the irony).
In contrast, this has not occurred among most of the Islamic faith, and from what I gather, it is considered "rude" or "impolite" for one Muslim to question how another Muslim interprets or follows his faith, except from perhaps a "holy man" of influence. There is no mechanism for restraint, and conversely a much higher percentage of "fundamentalists" among their populations.
Also, in many regions, many Muslims cannot read their own Koran. They are "taught" what those in power over them wish them to learn --- and if that is a corrupted view of the Koran to suit their own purposes (like strapping on a bomb and killing women and children), then that is what happens. Much of the al Qaeda propaganda is circulated by cassette tape, due to illiteracy.
And as another example, why haven't the head Mosques of the Sunni and Shia completely condemned the barbaric intra-faith fighting in Iraq? Because they believe this fight is "just". They really believe in the holy warrant for this shamefully medieval conflict.
There are also many more secular reasons for this fighting to be allowed to continue and even encouraged: power. Separating Politics and Religion is not remotely realistic in those parts of the world. They go hand in hand, and politics and political power tends to mold or use religion to their own purposes.
There are many power plays ongoing in the region of the Middle East.
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
it is considered "rude" or "impolite" for one Muslim to question how another Muslim interprets or follows his faith,
Aha! So it IS rude of those Sunnis to question those She-ite interpretations of the Muslim faith using the barrel of an AK! (and vice versa).
Perhaps a few columns by Miss Manners in the local paper could straighten them out.
:)
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
just for starters:
1. honor killing of family members
2. suicide bombing of innocents
3. torture
4. sawing heads off
5. Sharia Law
6. proscriptions against democracy
7. proscriptions against innovation
8. proscriptions against images
9. proscriptions against interest loans
10. proscriptions against social mixing of the sexes
Yea so how many people have you heard of in South Florida whom have had their head sawed off by Muslims?
"6. proscriptions against democracy
8. proscriptions against images"
Funny you should bring those up..
I happen to know a guy a webmaster buddy whom ran a fairly well known website out of Polk country Florida. You may remember the "scandals" about it as he was a evil doer it seems.
Remember the scandals of US female soldiers posting naked pictures on the net? Or better yet remember all the hoopla about "soldiers trading pictures from Iraq for membership's for a adult website?
Yea the guy whom I've done biz with in the past was locked up had has website taken down and was lucky to get out with only probation. Why because our lovely govt didn't like the "real" un censored pictures and stories getting out of Iraq.
They couldn't go after him because of the war pictures however that's what made him the target. So instead they used the right wing supporters to target him for obscenity prosecutions.
They locked him up and set a ridiculously high bail, only way he was able to "deal" his way out of jail time was to turn over control of his website and go on probation.
His crime.. Running a web fourm that allowed users to share pictures, unfortunately for him many of those users were US soldiers whom also liked to share pictures.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Phelps is a dipshirt and jerk of the highest magnitude but I must have missed where Phelps and his loonies blew themselves up, shot up the neighborhood with AK's or things like that.
Can you link that for me? I suspect you cannot.
No, of course not, and I did not imply any such thing. I said "atrocity", not "suicide bombing". The one is a subset of the other. Phelps' conduct is atrocious, hence "atrocity".
-
Originally posted by tedrbr
Also, in many regions, many Muslims cannot read their own Koran. They are "taught" what those in power over them wish them to learn --- and if that is a corrupted view of the Koran to suit their own purposes (like strapping on a bomb and killing women and children), then that is what happens.
I have to disagree there. The Koran really does say killing infidels is good and that martyrdom is good. And it does talk about the sensual pleasures of paradise. Suicide bombing is therefore not a corruption of the Koran (in the same way that the Inquisition was not a corruption of Christianity). But as with all religions, the sacred texts are full of internal contradictions. You can find passages in the Koran which say "be nice to each other" etc. So the key is to convince people to ignore the nasty parts.
How that is to be done, I don't know. The prospects don't look good for this to happen in Islam. But there are glimmers of hope. My understanding is that there is a large portion of the Iranian population (youth, mainly) that is sick of all the clerical horse****, and wants to adopt a westernized society. We can only hope that they come into positions of power and change things...before some mullah decides to start lobbing nukes around. :(
-
Originally posted by phookat
Phelps' conduct is atrocious, hence "atrocity".
Semantics then?
So it is worse because they are much more free to point to scripture as they commit their atrocities (like Fred Phelps does, but on a much larger scale).
None the less, comparing Muslim atrocities to those of Phelps is quite a stretch, IMO.
Phelps makes an arse of himself at funerals. We've all read of Muslims suicide bombing funerals.
Which is the real atrocity?
-
Yea so how many people have you heard of in South Florida whom have had their head sawed off by Muslims? - crockett
LOL crockett, you should be able to comprehend by re-reading your own post above that the two groups under discussion are Islamic extremists in the middle east (not westernized Muslims in America) versus the religious right in America.
:lol
-
crockett has a friend that ran a porn web site?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Semantics then?
Sure.
Originally posted by Toad
Phelps makes an arse of himself at funerals. We've all read of Muslims suicide bombing funerals.
Which is the real atrocity?
Both, of course. But one is larger than the other, as I said before.
-
Originally posted by john9001
crockett has a friend that ran a porn web site?
I have many friends that run lots of diffrent types of websites.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
LOL crockett, you should be able to comprehend by re-reading your own post above that the two groups under discussion are Islamic extremists in the middle east (not westernized Muslims in America) versus the religious right in America.
:lol
Yes but the question was..
"Whos afraid of the big bad islamist?"
In which I replied no.. because the big bad Islamist has no direct threat to me or my life. However the Religious Right in America have a direct affect on my way of life, so I'm more worried about what they do.. Rather than what some guys in mud huts in a country thousands of miles away.
-
Originally posted by crockett
In which I replied no.. because the big bad Islamist has no direct threat to me or my life.
until the day you go to the mall and a truck bomb explodes.
-
Originally posted by john9001
until the day you go to the mall and a truck bomb explodes.
From the noise Al-qeada has been making lately that day may not be far off. I suspect many opinions may soon change and the real differences between Islam and Christianity will become more apparent.
-
Originally posted by phookat
Both, of course. But one is larger than the other, as I said before.
Yes, you are so right.
On a scale of one to one million, one million being the worst, Phelps is about a 2 and the Muslim suicide bombers are about.....one million.
So yeah, they're both atrocities.
Where is that rolleyes thing when you need it?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
From the noise Al-qeada has been making lately that day may not be far off. I suspect many opinions may soon change and the real differences between Islam and Christianity will become more apparent.
I'm not defending them. However until you can put yourself in their situation then it's little to argue about.
Would you sit by and do nothing if China invaded the US because they felt we were a terrorist threat to the world? If a Chinese army was marching down your street or down Canada's streets after defeating our armies.
Would you not as a civilian pick up a gun and fight back? Would you not set bombs on the side of the road if you have no other means to fight them?
Did we expect the Europeans to do nothing when Hitler invaded. Was the civilian resistance "terrorists" when they fought in occupied countries during WW2?
I don't agree with what they do, but one thing is certain.. They didn't ask us to go invade their country and we are the invaders and a occupying army.
You can call it liberation and fighting for democracy and freedom until you are blue in the face. You can convince yourself all you want, however it means nothing if you can't convince the people in the middle east.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I'm not defending them. However until you can put yourself in their situation then it's little to argue about.
Would you sit by and do nothing if China invaded the US because they felt we were a terrorist threat to the world? If a Chinese army was marching down your street or down Canada's streets after defeating our armies.
Would you not as a civilian pick up a gun and fight back? Would you not set bombs on the side of the road if you have no other means to fight them?
Did we expect the Europeans to do nothing when Hitler invaded. Was the civilian resistance "terrorists" when they fought in occupied countries during WW2?
I don't agree with what they do, but one thing is certain.. They didn't ask us to go invade their country and we are the invaders and a occupying army.
You can call it liberation and fighting for democracy and freedom until you are blue in the face. You can convince yourself all you want, however it means nothing if you can't convince the people in the middle east.
Are you talking about Iraq or just the general interest and influence in the middle east by the west? I would hardly liken Iraq to Europe unless you equate Saddam with Adolf. I will agree that the west has been meddling in the middle east since we became dependent upon it's oil. I will also grant they have the right to complain about our meddling and understand their attempts to reject our culture and influence. However, it is in the nature of humanity to struggle, conquer, and prevail and we would be fools to imagine ourselves any other way.
-
crockett, don't try to rationalize the actions of islamic fanatics. They have sworn to convert or kill you.
-
Originally posted by john9001
crockett, don't try to rationalize the actions of islamic fanatics. They have sworn to convert or kill you.
Have we not done the same? we don't come out and say it directly like they do, that's the only real difference.
We are trying to turn the middle east into a "westren" friendly zone that our corprations can get rich on. While we may not be pushing religion on them, we sure as hell are pushing capitalislm on them and we are doing it by gun boat diplomacy.
Or better yet the term I heard a while back.. Dollar Diplomacy.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Are you talking about Iraq or just the general interest and influence in the middle east by the west? I would hardly liken Iraq to Europe unless you equate Saddam with Adolf. I will agree that the west has been meddling in the middle east since we became dependent upon it's oil. I will also grant they have the right to complain about our meddling and understand their attempts to reject our culture and influence. However, it is in the nature of humanity to struggle, conquer, and prevail and we would be fools to imagine ourselves any other way.
The entire middle east. We have been putting our noses in their business since world war two. Before us it was the French and the British, and so on and so on.
How do you think Americans would feel if we were still a developing nation and some other country was milking us for our resources? Humm I guess that already happened and we fought a war over it. It was called the American Revolution and the British used to call our colonial army "Terrorists" because we didn't fight a conventional war.
Again I don't support the extremists, but I understand them, or better yet I try to understand them.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Have we not done the same? we don't come out and say it directly like they do, that's the only real difference.
We are trying to turn the middle east into a "westren" friendly zone that our corprations can get rich on. While we may not be pushing religion on them, we sure as hell are pushing capitalislm on them and we are doing it by gun boat diplomacy.
Or better yet the term I heard a while back.. Dollar Diplomacy.
ahhh, evil capitalism. :noid
-
Again I don't support the extremists, but I understand them, or better yet I try to understand them.
====
you are sympathetic to them and blame western culture for exploiting them.
This is not something to feel guilty about, but you should consider being up front about it here.
How do you feel about westerners that have converted to islam and traveled to Afganistan and Iraq to fight the western impirialist crusaders?
-
Originally posted by crockett
I'm more afraid of the Religious Right in America than some Islamic extremist group in the middle east.
Who are the "Religious Right in America" and what exactly are they doing that makes you more afraid of them than the Islamic facists who have come to America many times (and publically stated that they will continue to do so) killing or attempting to kill the inocent? What makes someone part of the "Religious Right" anyway? I believe in God. Does that make me a bigger threat than OBL? Note that the vast majority of Americans are believers in God. Yet, I'm not seeing much in the way of Christians blowing themselves up to kill non-Christians. Guess I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your position.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Who are the "Religious Right in America" and what exactly are they doing that makes you more afraid of them than the Islamic facists who have come to America many times (and publically stated that they will continue to do so) killing or attempting to kill the inocent? What makes someone part of the "Religious Right" anyway? I believe in God. Does that make me a bigger threat than OBL? Note that the vast majority of Americans are believers in God. Yet, I'm not seeing much in the way of Christians blowing themselves up to kill non-Christians. Guess I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your position.
Conservative Christians are whom I refer to when I say Religious Right or RR.
You don't have to blow your self up to assault freedom. Freedom of speech in America has been under attack by the moral police for quite some time by the RR. They love their right to practice their religion which is granted right under our constitution, but don't seem to give any respect to Freedom of Speech or that all men are created equal.
However they are the first to try to ban books or protest corporations when ever someone doesn't do everything they want or kneel down to their idealism. RR are the first to bash and attack people for their lifestyle, if it's different from what they think is right.
I could care less if you go to church every week and believe in God. I'm happy if you are happy. However I don't want some self proclaimed group acting as a moral police on my behalf.
I'm a big boy, I don't need the RR telling me what I should watch on TV or listen to on the radio. I don't need them to tell me what I can surf online. I'm an adult and can think on my own.
Thanks to the Religious Right, the number one priority of the FBI under Alberto Gonzales (the guy that can't remember anything) is to get obscenity prosecutions against webmasters whom run online adult websites.
You would think that maybe catching terrorist would be a priority since they keep trying to telling us we are all in danger of terror attacks. Nope the number one priority of the FBI under it's current leadership is to fight evil webmasters online.
Being I'm a webmaster and make my living online, that apparently makes me more dangerous than al Qaeda, according to this administration and the current A.G. Alberto Gonzales. I'd say the biggest threat to me and my freedoms as an American citizen is the Religious Right and their moral police.
-
online adult websites
====
That is your line of work?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
online adult websites
====
That is your line of work?
I run lots of diffrent kinds of websites, yes some are adult.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I run lots of diffrent kinds of websites, yes some are adult.
Man, leeme tell ya. I love yr work. Peter North is hero to many an OC in here.
-
Originally posted by crockett
protest corporations when ever someone doesn't do everything they want or kneel down to their idealism.
dont you be dissin jesse jackson like that.:mad:
-
Originally posted by john9001
dont you be dissin jesse jackson like that.:mad:
Or Al Sharpton
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Or Al Sharpton
I could like Al but Jesse takes himself too seriously.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I could like Al but Jesse takes himself too seriously.
I cant like either one of em.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Yet, I'm not seeing much in the way of Christians blowing themselves up to kill non-Christians. Guess I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your position.
Well, we've had a lot of Christians blowing up Christians of a slightly different shade of Christianity (often civilians, women and children) here in the UK in recent times.
-
Do abortion clinic bombings count?
-
Originally posted by crockett
I run lots of diffrent kinds of websites, yes some are adult.
So what is your feeling regarding pedophiles and child pornography? If they pay the bill is it ok to have their particular kind of "stuff" on your web sites?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
So what is your feeling regarding pedophiles and child pornography? If they pay the bill is it ok to have their particular kind of "stuff" on your web sites?
LoL typical..
Think long and hard on that, I mean real long and hard. then Take a wild guess as to what you think my answer is. I won't even bother to answer because I'm sure you know the answer already.
It's almost as idiotic as me asking you..
Do you think it's ok for Christians to blow up abortion clinics and kill the staff. Ok to kill one doctor because then he can't do any more abortions? Is it ok as long as it get's the job done?
Or better yet.. I saw on TV once some Christians out there in the west somewhere whom played with snakes, because Jesus would keep them safe. Is that what all good Christians do, if you don't play with snakes does that mean you don't believe in Jesus?
Kinda insulting is it?
-
Crokett,
Please tell everyone the "new" Federal regulations you have to work by while you provide a pornography website to the public. Then tell everyone in non idelogical terms why you are angry at those regulations. I seem to remember part of the new regulations are to insure that the tiny teen lust pictures you host are indeed petite 18 or over young ladies. But then we all love peeking at our neighbors 12 year old daughter when she bends over in her teeny bikini in the backyard pool don't we??
Or that the young Gay twink pictures are not 14 year old or even younger eyecandy for NAMBLA degenerats. Don't you have to get the personal information of every person in every photo and movie, then keep it on record for the Fed before you can host the content? How bad are the fines and "punishment" if you mess up when the christian financed gestopo comes knocking? Oops....FBI.
I think more than just the evil christian extreamists here in the U.S. had something to do with the legislation. Not all PARENTS in the U.S. have given up on their children's future. I know those evil parents had just a teeni weeni bit to do with it. But hey they can just keep their children off your webpage since prono is a fast buck. After all you have a living to make and all that capitolistic mumbo jumbo.
-
Originally posted by crockett
LoL typical..
Think long and hard on that, I mean real long and hard. then Take a wild guess as to what you think my answer is. I won't even bother to answer because I'm sure you know the answer already.
It's almost as idiotic as me asking you..
Do you think it's ok for Christians to blow up abortion clinics and kill the staff. Ok to kill one doctor because then he can't do any more abortions? Is it ok as long as it get's the job done?
Or better yet.. I saw on TV once some Christians out there in the west somewhere whom played with snakes, because Jesus would keep them safe. Is that what all good Christians do, if you don't play with snakes does that mean you don't believe in Jesus?
Kinda insulting is it?
Actually it was a legitimate and serious question. Instead of making an assumption, wrongly, you might have asked me about it.
So I'll ask again. So what is your feeling regarding pedophiles and child pornography? If they pay the bill is it ok to have their particular kind of "stuff" on your web sites?
As far as I know I haven't made any statements regarding the blowing up of abortion clinics or the murder of the staff members of said clinic, so I don't know where you get off thinking I had that in mind.
The folks who play with snakes certainly had no place regarding my question. I asked a secular question for secular purposes. I made no mention whatsoever about any kind of religious influence. That is totally your inference as it was neither stated nor implied in my questions.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Actually it was a legitimate and serious question. Instead of making an assumption, wrongly, you might have asked me about it.
So I'll ask again. So what is your feeling regarding pedophiles and child pornography? If they pay the bill is it ok to have their particular kind of "stuff" on your web sites?
As far as I know I haven't made any statements regarding the blowing up of abortion clinics or the murder of the staff members of said clinic, so I don't know where you get off thinking I had that in mind.
The folks who play with snakes certainly had no place regarding my question. I asked a secular question for secular purposes. I made no mention whatsoever about any kind of religious influence. That is totally your inference as it was neither stated nor implied in my questions.
So you think just because someone is in the Adult industry, that they support CP? Go back and listen to the 700 club some more. You didn't get an answer because it should be pretty dam obvious to you.
Did you know that the US hotel chains and cable companies are the biggest profiteers of porn world wide? Did you know they make more than Playboy and Hustler corps?
Would you ask the Time Warner executive if he supported CP? Would you ask Paris Hilton if her family supports CP?
You know the answer to your question because your question is trying to imply that Adult content somehow supports CP. It's the same as me saying that every Christian thinks New Orleans deserved to be wiped off the map because of their Evil sinful ways just like they claim on the 700 club.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Crokett,
Please tell everyone the "new" Federal regulations you have to work by while you provide a pornography website to the public. Then tell everyone in non idelogical terms why you are angry at those regulations. I seem to remember part of the new regulations are to insure that the tiny teen lust pictures you host are indeed petite 18 or over young ladies. But then we all love peeking at our neighbors 12 year old daughter when she bends over in her teeny bikini in the backyard pool don't we??
Or that the young Gay twink pictures are not 14 year old or even younger eyecandy for NAMBLA degenerats. Don't you have to get the personal information of every person in every photo and movie, then keep it on record for the Fed before you can host the content? How bad are the fines and "punishment" if you mess up when the christian financed gestopo comes knocking? Oops....FBI.
I think more than just the evil christian extreamists here in the U.S. had something to do with the legislation. Not all PARENTS in the U.S. have given up on their children's future. I know those evil parents had just a teeni weeni bit to do with it. But hey they can just keep their children off your webpage since prono is a fast buck. After all you have a living to make and all that capitolistic mumbo jumbo.
Actually if you knew anything about what you were talking about you would understand what the FBI is doing is nothing in-regards to actually fighting CP. What the FBI is being used for is pretty much nothing but Fluff work, sad to say.
Also you would know the the 2256 and 2257 laws have been on the books for quite a few years already. The wording of 2257 was changed recently to muddy up the waters a bit. In an atempt to get more out of it than what it was intend to be. Over all it's still the same law that we have been working under for quite some time.
The biggest change to it was requirement for secondary producers which is currently tied up in court right now and I'm exempt from inspections under an agreement with the Free Speech collation and the Attorney General's office.
The law has been on the books something like 10 years now. You know how many inspections the FBI did before this last year? A big fat ZERO.
You might ask out of the 10 or 15 inspections they have done to date since the updates. Did anyone fail? I'm sure you will be happy to know, that not a single adult company has failed it's inspections.
The only reason the law was changed was because the COPA Act was found to be un constitutional by the Supreme Court. So in response the current AG decided to try to go around the laws by modifying a law that was already on the books.
Thanks to what he has done, the entire 2257 law will likely be dismissed as unconstitutional or a very big part of it as it now stands. I've said it all along that the Admin is all about "headlines" and that was just a big headline for them.
The law it's self doesn't bug me, if it was being used for it's intended use. However it's just being used as a tool to harass legit businesses that this admin has issues with. The FBI on the other hand seems to act pretty professional during the inspections and tends to act like they would rather be working on real crimes. (go figure)
Upset with them? Yea you could say that but for reasons you probably don't want to hear or accept. Yea I'm a little upset that our govt is more worried about harassing legit businesses, than actually fighting real CP
Thanks to good ole Alberto, there is quite a bit of the 2257 law that's going to be over turned as being un-constitutional and it's going to be tied up in court for the next several years. So does it affect me.. Na not really.
-
What was the Queen thinking? Then again, who doesn't like to poke a hornet's nest? :D
-
crockett,
Free Speech collation = Pornography Industry = $11B per year.
Is it more on the mark that you dislike christians because christians beleive pornography is a sin and evil? You make a living with pornography, and probably think they are whack jobs. As dangerous or worse than muslim extreamists because they can have some affect in passing anti-smut laws which might affect your monitary and legal bottom line. Their judgement of pornography can be construed as a real and very personal attack due to the congressional end results based only on their beleifs?
Think about it. A bunch of Holy Rollers can convice their congress critters that nekked girls is smut and actually pass laws against nothing but showing pictures of nekked girls so you can't pay the light bill. I hear in Iran they just shoot smut peddlers and be done with it. At least you live in America. The Holy Rollers may get laws passed, but there is no history of dragging poor defenceless web meisters into the street and shooting them for pictures of nekked girls. But didn't some movie director in europe get killed because he insulted Mohammed and Islam with one of his productions?
-
Well, I look at this argument a couple of ways.
I remember one of the virtues was, and you can quote me on this:
"Chaste"
But if you stuck to Chaste as a virtue none of us would be around to argue about it.
The other thing is this; as a driving force in technology (cam corders, DVD, and various incarnations of the MPEG 4 isospec), the guys who have been driving the technology we've been taking advantage of on the internet has been the porn industry FROM DAY 1.
In one of the companies I used to work for we were in DVD authoring. You know who had the most up to date Video Codecs? Sure as hell wasn't comming out of the Microsoft camp. So each employee was given a per-diem to browse through the porn sites and farm their codecs so we could figure out which was best to use for content delivery, bandwidth vs compression, etc.
And it still is the leading driver for innovation especially when dealing with compression algorythms. As for ethics - we're blessed with free will and do with it as we please.
Wolf
-
Originally posted by crockett
So you think just because someone is in the Adult industry, that they support CP? Go back and listen to the 700 club some more. You didn't get an answer because it should be pretty dam obvious to you.
Did you know that the US hotel chains and cable companies are the biggest profiteers of porn world wide? Did you know they make more than Playboy and Hustler corps?
Would you ask the Time Warner executive if he supported CP? Would you ask Paris Hilton if her family supports CP?
You know the answer to your question because your question is trying to imply that Adult content somehow supports CP. It's the same as me saying that every Christian thinks New Orleans deserved to be wiped off the map because of their Evil sinful ways just like they claim on the 700 club.
Once again you are assuming something that is incorrect. You don't know me so the idea that you know what I am thinking is somewhat silly. Please don't presume to put words in my post that were never there.
I'll try to say this as simply as I can. I have no interest in religious ramifications regarding the questions I asked. I did not mention any religious aspects at all in the questions I asked.
I also didn't ask anything about the hotel industry, time warner, playboy, hustler or any part of the television industry up to and including the 700 show which I have never watched.
I asked YOU the questions because I had a secular (as in non religious) interest in what YOU thought as a member of the industry of web industry. I suppose since you have responded twice now with veiled personal attacks that you are unable or simply unwilling to answer. If you do not want to answer simply own up to it and say so and get off your self rightous indignation about something I wasn't speaking about.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Well, I look at this argument a couple of ways.
I remember one of the virtues was, and you can quote me on this:
"Chaste"
But if you stuck to Chaste as a virtue none of us would be around to argue about it.
The other thing is this; as a driving force in technology (cam corders, DVD, and various incarnations of the MPEG 4 isospec), the guys who have been driving the technology we've been taking advantage of on the internet has been the porn industry FROM DAY 1.
In one of the companies I used to work for we were in DVD authoring. You know who had the most up to date Video Codecs? Sure as hell wasn't comming out of the Microsoft camp. So each employee was given a per-diem to browse through the porn sites and farm their codecs so we could figure out which was best to use for content delivery, bandwidth vs compression, etc.
And it still is the leading driver for innovation especially when dealing with compression algorythms. As for ethics - we're blessed with free will and do with it as we please.
Wolf
Exactly people are so quick to try to condemn porn for this or that. However those very people reap the benefits of what adult has brought along with it.
You guys think they would be streaming streaming Sunday church over the net if it wasn't because of the adult industry?
Not to mention what the adult industry has done in regards for free speech in America. The people of this country's freedoms of speech have been fought for and continue to be fought for by the adult industry time and time again.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Exactly people are so quick to try to condemn porn for this or that. However those very people reap the benefits of what adult has brought along with it.
You guys think they would be streaming streaming Sunday church over the net if it wasn't because of the adult industry?
Not to mention what the adult industry has done in regards for free speech in America. The people of this country's freedoms of speech have been fought for and continue to be fought for by the adult industry time and time again.
Comeon, the "adult industry" has no interest in freedom of speech beyond profitability. Those of moral character who would allow free will must suffer the ills associated with humanity's proclivity to self destruction.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Once again you are assuming something that is incorrect. You don't know me so the idea that you know what I am thinking is somewhat silly. Please don't presume to put words in my post that were never there.
I'll try to say this as simply as I can. I have no interest in religious ramifications regarding the questions I asked. I did not mention any religious aspects at all in the questions I asked.
I also didn't ask anything about the hotel industry, time warner, playboy, hustler or any part of the television industry up to and including the 700 show which I have never watched.
I asked YOU the questions because I had a secular (as in non religious) interest in what YOU thought as a member of the industry of web industry. I suppose since you have responded twice now with veiled personal attacks that you are unable or simply unwilling to answer. If you do not want to answer simply own up to it and say so and get off your self rightous indignation about something I wasn't speaking about.
You are going to try and sit there and act holier than thou after you ask this:
"So what is your feeling regarding pedophiles and child pornography? If they pay the bill is it ok to have their particular kind of "stuff" on your web sites? [/b]"
You somehow expect me to believe that you aren't trying to insinuate that I think it's ok to push CP just because I'm in the Adult industry?
If you weren't trying to give that impression why did you just stop the question with the first part?
So what is your feeling regarding pedophiles and child pornography?
If you asked that question I wouldn't have a single problem in the world answering it. However you most defiantly added the second part of your question to imply that because I'm in the Adult industry that I must also push CP.
For the first question of course I despise CP and those whom produce it, or watch it. I fully support the asacp.com and have donated to them several times and also been part of fund raisers within the adult community to support the asacp.
I think you can figure out my stance on your second question yourself.
In regards to this topic I think we have strayed far enough off topic. I may have led it there a bit but I felt my first responce was in line with the scope of the topic.
As far as the topic of adult and how I choose to make my living, I personally don't think it has a place on this forum. I only posted what I do, because I was asked and Im' not going to lie about what I do as I feel no need too.
-
Let me see if I understand this correctly: The heroic porn industry, which is slopping over with redeeming social value, stands as a defender of first amendment freedoms against the depredations of unbridled and invasive Christian morality.
$$Yep, now that it has been explained to me, I can see where right-wing religious fanatics are more dangerous than muslim terrorists, at least to certain forms of free enterprise unfettered by riculous and old-fashioned religious notions of social responsibility.$$
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Comeon, the "adult industry" has no interest in freedom of speech beyond profitability. Those of moral character who would allow free will must suffer the ills associated with humanity's proclivity to self destruction.
No one ever cares about anything unless it affects them directly. What have you done for freedom of speech?
It's easy to lay blame, but what have you done to help?
You want to talk about "Moral Character"?
Lets talk about people whom work in the tobacco industry. How many people die every year as a result of cigarettes?
Why is there no outcry against people whom work in the tobacco industry? After all they are linked to the deaths of 440 thousand people every year in the US alone.
"Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing approximately 440,000 premature deaths each year and resulting in an annual cost of more than $75 billion in direct medical costs attributable to smoking.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/Tobacco.html
There are all kinds of views and ideas on what is Moral and what isn't. While maybe I'm a bit more open on morality in regards to adult content. I tend to have quite the opposite views on suffering of people.
I think tobacco companies are immoral.
I think the US health insurance and pharmaceutical companies act immoral.
I think our govt acts immoral in regards to it's policies around the world.
I think govt's allowing kids to starve in Africa because of politics is immoral.
I could go on and on because there are many things that are 100s of times more damaging to humanity than adult material is.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Let me see if I understand this correctly: The heroic porn industry, which is slopping over with redeeming social value, stands as a defender of first amendment freedoms against the depredations of unbridled and invasive Christian morality.
$$Yep, now that it has been explained to me, I can see where right-wing religious fanatics are more dangerous than muslim terrorists, at least to certain forms of free enterprise unfettered by riculous and old-fashioned religious notions of social responsibility.$$
Christian groups have been attacking what you can watch on television, listen to on the radio and see on the internet for quite sometime. Not to mention trying to tell you what you can read at a public library. That is most definitely an assault on free speech.
Even Spirit of Justice herself was not spared the wrath of the moral police.
-
Originally posted by crockett
No one ever cares about anything unless it affects them directly. What have you done for freedom of speech?
It's easy to lay blame, but what have you done to help?
You want to talk about "Moral Character"?
Lets talk about people whom work in the tobacco industry. How many people die every year as a result of cigarettes?
Why is there no outcry against people whom work in the tobacco industry? After all they are linked to the deaths of 440 thousand people every year in the US alone.
"Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that tobacco use remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing approximately 440,000 premature deaths each year and resulting in an annual cost of more than $75 billion in direct medical costs attributable to smoking.
http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/Tobacco.html
There are all kinds of views and ideas on what is Moral and what isn't. While maybe I'm a bit more open on morality in regards to adult content. I tend to have quite the opposite views on suffering of people.
I think tobacco companies are immoral.
I think the US health insurance and pharmaceutical companies act immoral.
I think our govt acts immoral in regards to it's policies around the world.
I think govt's allowing kids to starve in Africa because of politics is immoral.
I could go on and on because there are many things that are 100s of times more damaging to humanity than adult material is.
What have I done? Towards what end? That tobacco kills people is not arguable. Less quantifiable is the detriment of pornography. Perhaps nothing more than create a gulf between you and your spouse or you and your God.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What have I done? Towards what end? That tobacco kills people is not arguable. Less quantifiable is the detriment of pornography. Perhaps nothing more than create a gulf between you and your spouse or you and your God.
You said the porn industry was only interested in free speech for profit.
"Comeon, the "adult industry" has no interest in freedom of speech beyond profitability"
I simply told you generally no one cares about anything unless they themselves are directly affected. I just asked what have you done to champion free speech ?
A quote I think holds a bit of merit.
Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935
-
Originally posted by crockett
You said the porn industry was only interested in free speech for profit.
"Comeon, the "adult industry" has no interest in freedom of speech beyond profitability"
I simply told you generally no one cares about anything unless they themselves are directly affected. I just asked what have you done to champion free speech ?
A quote I think holds a bit of merit.
Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935
I have spoken to others my mind in regards to freedom of speech both here and in real life. ;) What else might I do? I did also serve a number of years in the USAF which might be considered support of our liberties. Surely this is worth as much as a quote? Some conjoining self-interests are more mutually beneficial than others.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I have spoken to others my mind in regards to freedom of speech both here and in real life. ;) What else might I do? I did also serve a number of years in the USAF which might be considered support of our liberties. Surely this is worth as much as a quote? Some conjoining self-interests are more mutually beneficial than others.
Thank you for your service to our country. While it's important that our country has people like your self to protect it's liberties. IMO it's also just as important that there are people whom are willing to push back the boundaries and test the limits of free speech.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Thank you for your service to our country. While it's important that our country has people like your self to protect it's liberties. IMO it's also just as important that there are people whom are willing to push back the boundaries and test the limits of free speech.
crockett,
You might wanna quit while your ahead. I don't think you could get yourself elected to dog catcher on the platform of equaling yourself to our military personel and their service based on pornography as a patriotic duty in defence of the first amendmant. I don't think mom and pop america would get past the letter "P" let alone take you seriously.
Pornography is not an essential element to the security and freedom of the United States of America. But then, we did fight a war with Germany, kill millions of its citizens and occupy the place for over 20 years just so we could capture Goering's mansion with it's world class pornography library. Rumor has it most of the National Socialist leadership dropped in from time to time to enjoy his library between rounds of being good Liberal members of the Riche. Yes good healthy adult entertainment................ ....
-
Originally posted by bustr
crockett,
You might wanna quit while your ahead. I don't think you could get yourself elected to dog catcher on the platform of equaling yourself to our military personel and their service based on pornography as a patriotic duty in defence of the first amendmant. I don't think mom and pop america would get past the letter "P" let alone take you seriously.[/i]]
Oh, I dunno I always thought all people were equal, no matter they be the very best or the very worst society has to offer. Also who said I was equaling my self to anyone? I try not to judge unless I know they are judging me.
I said each has it's place.. That's very much diffrent from saying one is better than the other or equal too the other. It's all a matter of perspective.
Originally posted by bustr [/B]
Pornography is not an essential element to the security and freedom of the United States of America. But then, we did fight a war with Germany, kill millions of its citizens and occupy the place for over 20 years just so we could capture Goering's mansion with it's world class pornography library. Rumor has it most of the National Socialist leadership dropped in from time to time to enjoy his library between rounds of being good Liberal members of the Riche. Yes good healthy adult entertainment................ .... [/B]
Pornography my not be essential element to the security of this country, but it is a very important part of it's freedoms. Thanks to that right of freedom of speech, people can print all the bibles they want or all the porn they want assuming it doesn't violate any laws.
Some might not like it, but thanks to our Constitution others have the right to make thats decision for themselves and not have some "mom and pop " tell them what they can and can not do or see.
Maybe if people weren't so uptight and scared into thinking something is bad then their perspective might change a bit. I've always thought it was funny, that it's no big deal to have shows on TV where people are killed constantly yet a bare breast will cause a riot.
Personally I think our country has it's perspectives a bit twisted in the wrong direction.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Pornography my not be essential element to the security of this country, but it is a very important part of it's freedoms. Thanks to that right of freedom of speech, people can print all the bibles they want or all the porn they want assuming it doesn't violate any laws.
Pornography is garbage and a simple but lucrative vehical to making money by showing people tushies gone wild. There is nothing noble or brave in the venture. We are biologicly prone to react which makes male humans escpecially good marks for tushie pictures. Printing bibles is protected by the first amendmant via the free exercise of religion statement.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Pronography had to be found between the lines (( in the punctuation secret code marks along with abortion)) only after contentious review by the SCOTUS. Depending on the 9 human beings sitting at any time on the SCOTUS, the future of pornography is always in danger of being returned to the gutter as smut.
If pornography were as essential to the foundation of free speech in this country as you have conviced yourself, politicians at all levels would have no fear of welding pornography in bold letters into their election campains as a primary plank. Even Billery Clinton couldn't elevate smut to the level you delude us with by getting Lewinskied in the oval office.
It's comendable you make a living doing something you are a professional at. Smut is smut and will always be smut. Don't do our military past and present the disservice of equating defending smut under the auspicies of the constitution with their real sacrifice to our Nation.
Originally posted by crockett
Thank you for your service to our country. While it's important that our country has people like your self to protect it's liberties. IMO it's also just as important that there are people whom are willing to push back the boundaries and test the limits of free speech
-
I apologise if you were offended by the second question. It was not intended in the manner you took it. It was intended to frame up a position that it is a commercial decision to have adult content. Obviously you charge a fee for someone to use your web services.
I'm not responsible for what you believe, nor are you responsible to determine what I do.
Based on the fact that the content of your web sites are based on a commercial decision, what do you feel is a proper means of determining what is permissible content? Should the content be limited and if so, by whom? How about access control and again who should be responsible for monitoring that aspect of the situation? I'm not referring to parental monitoring of their kids web visits, a responsible parent should be doing that as a matter of course to avoid predatory contact.
FWIW I have no idea what asacp is or does.
Originally posted by crockett
You are going to try and sit there and act holier than thou after you ask this:
"So what is your feeling regarding pedophiles and child pornography? If they pay the bill is it ok to have their particular kind of "stuff" on your web sites? "
You somehow expect me to believe that you aren't trying to insinuate that I think it's ok to push CP just because I'm in the Adult industry?
If you weren't trying to give that impression why did you just stop the question with the first part?
So what is your feeling regarding pedophiles and child pornography?
If you asked that question I wouldn't have a single problem in the world answering it. However you most defiantly added the second part of your question to imply that because I'm in the Adult industry that I must also push CP.
For the first question of course I despise CP and those whom produce it, or watch it. I fully support the asacp.com and have donated to them several times and also been part of fund raisers within the adult community to support the asacp.
I think you can figure out my stance on your second question yourself.
In regards to this topic I think we have strayed far enough off topic. I may have led it there a bit but I felt my first responce was in line with the scope of the topic.
As far as the topic of adult and how I choose to make my living, I personally don't think it has a place on this forum. I only posted what I do, because I was asked and Im' not going to lie about what I do as I feel no need too. [/B]
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I apologise if you were offended by the second question. It was not intended in the manner you took it. It was intended to frame up a position that it is a commercial decision to have adult content. Obviously you charge a fee for someone to use your web services.
I'm not responsible for what you believe, nor are you responsible to determine what I do.
Based on the fact that the content of your web sites are based on a commercial decision, what do you feel is a proper means of determining what is permissible content? Should the content be limited and if so, by whom? How about access control and again who should be responsible for monitoring that aspect of the situation? I'm not referring to parental monitoring of their kids web visits, a responsible parent should be doing that as a matter of course to avoid predatory contact.
FWIW I have no idea what asacp is or does.
Well as far as whats available today.. I think too much is out there for free. It might surprise you, but most in the industry would rather you have to pay to see the goods.
Back in 1998 - 2000 guys used to get rich quick just putting up banners on crappy pages. Wasn't easy to see the free stuff, so people had to pay for what they want to see.
Problem is, the genie is out of the bottle and it's pretty much impossible to stuff back in. If it was a perfect world I'd say hell yea make laws that force the good stuff to be hidden behind members areas.
However it's the internet or the "world" wide web. The US might think it can control stuff, but in reality there is little that they can do short of going after the billing like they have done with Gambling.
(difference in Gambling and Porn.. gambling has always been illegal in the US so it was easy to attack)
Reason I say that, is because say it's all made illegal in the US (will never happen). Well that doesn't stop anyone in Europe, Russia or where ever else from doing exactly what they want. So where do you think the business would move?
I think what the US govt is doing is going to greatly backfire on them. By trying to make regulations tougher and for the most part harassing legit business they are forcing guys to move offshore. Once they move off shore they are no longer under US regulation and don't have to play by US laws.
So tell what do you think is better?
1) The govt accept the fact that people are going to produce this content and work with the industry to make reasonable regulations.
or
2) The govt continues as normal trying to over regulate and make life hard for the companies whom are trying to run legit businesses.
Is it..
A) Better that the govt act reasonable so they can actually regulate the industry?
or
B) Harasses the industry until it's moves offshore where it can no longer be regulated?
I think common sense should dictate the answer, too bad so few in our govt seem to react with common sense.
As a side note, my servers are already located in Amsterdam and I will soon be setting up my company in Curacao. Simply to protect myself from a govt whom I feel is out of hand. I do nothing wrong and in reality I don't even mess with much hardcore stuff, it's mostly softcore style.
However why take a unnecessary risk if I don't need to? Why be over regulated if I don't have to be? Why pay 30%+ of my income in taxes when I can pay 3%? See the point I'm getting at? In this day and age it's far too easy to set up offshore and not have to deal with strict US regulations.
So the govt would be better served and better serve it's citizens to actually work with the industry instead of attack it. At least that's my opinion.
ASACP = Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection. ASACP is for the most part, Adult funded and is pretty much the biggest anti CP watchdog group on the net.
-
They publish cartoons mocking Jesus..then say u can't satarize Mohammed?
@*&% em
-
Crocket,
Were still back to one of the questions I posed earlier. What do you, as a provider of web services, feel is a reasonable means of regulating. You mentioned Govt. cooperating with the adult industry but I am not sure how that can be accomplished especially as you say since the source can be moved off shore so easily. I'm just not seeing the means or method you have envisioned?
Short of monitoring every web feed crossing the border I just don't see what they can do. Raiding an individual for the content of their computer is rather inefficient due to the sheer number of computers they'd somehow have to be able to tap into. Does this leave the "industry" in the position of being self regulating in a de facto situation?
I agree that a pay to view site could have some limited effect on the content access, but with the number of "kids" who have their own account a simple CC isn't much of a deterent.
-
Rushdie to porn....what a ride.
I would like to thank also , all those pornqueens and king , those internet wannabe movie stars , those people that spend their credit cards to d/l some people doing the nasty in jello pudding while wearing a snorkle and rubber tback......
For keeping my freedom of speech possible and protecting it from those evil rightwingers.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Crocket,
Were still back to one of the questions I posed earlier. What do you, as a provider of web services, feel is a reasonable means of regulating. You mentioned Govt. cooperating with the adult industry but I am not sure how that can be accomplished especially as you say since the source can be moved off shore so easily. I'm just not seeing the means or method you have envisioned?
Short of monitoring every web feed crossing the border I just don't see what they can do. Raiding an individual for the content of their computer is rather inefficient due to the sheer number of computers they'd somehow have to be able to tap into. Does this leave the "industry" in the position of being self regulating in a de facto situation?
I agree that a pay to view site could have some limited effect on the content access, but with the number of "kids" who have their own account a simple CC isn't much of a deterent.
Well until there is a legit way to verify age on the net.. not much can be done. CC cards will "not" allow themselves to be used as a age verification. The govt tried to push a bill with that included and the CC companies flat out told them no.
Germany is the only country that's tried to do it and it's failed pretty bad. Then we have China whom blocks sites and that sure as hell doesn't seem to work, judging by all the worthless Chinese traffic that's out there.
My solution is for the govt to support or provide a "free" software that parents or whom ever can block sites on their computers. Like cyber-nanny or something like that.
Then parents can do their job instead of the govt raising peoples kids. That or create a .kids domain extension that has sites that are safe for kids and give parents a means to block other sites. So it works something like AOL or the likes. (I've said it many times.. Would you let your kid play in the highway? Then why let them play on the Internet super highway?)
Of course the govt will never support stuff like that, because they have to deal with the Religious Right, whom thinks the "only" solution is no porn at all. In fact the key issue in getting anything done is the Religious Right because they want everything their way.
It has nothing to do with the adult industry not being willing to work with the powers that be. It's the powers that be won't work with the adult industry.
Simple reason is because they are career politicians they don't care about getting things done but only getting re-elected. You think a congressman or a senator would get re-elected if he was on record as being the guy whom worked with the porn industry?
It's always been about politics and never about whats the best way to work with eacth other. You think the Religious Right would accept a agreement between the adult industry and the govt? lol yea right.
Hell the RR even protested the .xxx domain because they thought it would make a "legal" red light district (As is porn already isn't legal). The adult industry also protested it but for other reasons. The RR couldn't even see the forest for the trees, simply because they want to be able to tell every one what to do.
-
The wife had to deal with this situation a bit. She worked at the University library. They had a ton of computers all hooked up to the internet. There were and are no restrictions regarding content as the library is very "sensitive" about this on a freedom of speech issue. At the same time they have young kids (High school and Jr. high) in the library using the same machines. Add to this were the "street people" who also had to be allowed into the library in addition to some predatory folks who live in town and want to use a computer that doesn't belong to them to hunt for their particular "interest" so they can surf anonymously and not worry about being caught.
My suggestion was to install net nanny or it's equivalent. That was not allowed as it constituted "censorship". I then suggested they have some computers segregated so those people who had a need to research the adult sites could do so without displaying it to the general population and the visiting kids. That was also turned down. They never did come up with a solution before she retired. That was over 3 years ago and they are still trying to decide what to do. In the mean time they lose several computers a year because some one likes to access kiddie porn and store it on the machine or they use it to send it to someone else as a prank.
-
Yea it's a touchy subject all around which is why I get kind of ticked at the govt and the powers that be. The content is never going to go away, so IMO it would be best if the politicians and the Religious Right would understand that and work with the industry instead of always trying to fight it.
The FBI on the other hand seems to be open to working with the industry, however their hands are tied by the powers that be. I'm pretty sure the guys @ the FBI understand that it's easier to get things done with corporation rather than having to fight for everything.