G.W. will he go the way... [Archive] - Oprano Adult Industry Forums

Mike AI

11-10-2003, 09:39 AM

I am voting for Bush primarily due to his Foreign Policy and stance on the war on terrorism. If we get a democrat, the war on terrorism will face a MAJOR setback, which will lead to more Americans dead through out the world , and a longer war.

People forget that this is INDEED a war, one unlike any others.

Knocking out 2 countries in the middle east during the his first term is what I call a GOOD START!! If Bush wins a second term, I would not be sleeping to well if I was Assadd in Syria! :D

The arguement that Bush is worth for the porn business then a democrat, falls on death ears. Over 3 years and the vaunted "ashcroft/bush/nazi crack down that all the chickne little liberals spout off about has NOT happened. Sure a few people have been prosecuted, but with their extreme videos I beleive they deserve to be prosecuted. The Bush admin has let porn flow just like the Clinton admin ( and they have not sent tanks to kill children - waco!)

Real business people, which what porn people SHOULD be, understand that TAX cuts is what has been turning the economy around. A strong economy is better for business in the long run..... strong for ALL business!!

To make the decision even easier, the group of Democrates running is a HUGE joke.... I do not think one of them is fit to run Baskin Robbins much less the Country.

Bush has done a good job... I was not a fan of his early, but I am now.

FATPad

11-10-2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 06:47 AM
The arguement that Bush is worth for the porn business then a democrat, falls on death ears. Over 3 years and the vaunted "ashcroft/bush/nazi crack down that all the chickne little liberals spout off about has NOT happened.
Do you think that's because he doesn't want to or because 9/11 took his attention away from it?

benc

11-10-2003, 09:48 AM

I agree with MikeAI.

There will be some more guys on the fringe busted, some that perhaps deserve it for running their business so wide open.

They arent going to try to bust hundreds of webmasters. Thats a fairy tale, scare tactic.

The bigger threat to the adult industry is Visa and flimsy patent holders. Acacia is only the first. There are others out there with half assed patents that watched companies like CE and Hustler welcome acacia with open arms and take the sweet deal and then sit back and watch their competition fucked with.

So I would say Bush is going to win. The only reason his father lost is because a conservative independent, Perot, took alot of the vote. Clinton won with only 41% or so.

Last edited by benc at Nov 10 2003, 06:58 AM

Mike AI

11-10-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by FATPad+Nov 10 2003, 09:51 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FATPad @ Nov 10 2003, 09:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 06:47 AM
The arguement that Bush is worth for the porn business then a democrat, falls on death ears. Over 3 years and the vaunted "ashcroft/bush/nazi crack down that all the chickne little liberals spout off about has NOT happened.
Do you think that's because he doesn't want to or because 9/11 took his attention away from it?[/b][/quote]

Does it matter? I make decisions on realities, not speculation.

However, knowing Bush's past, he was a party kind of guy, a frat boy, a member of skull and bones.... his daughters are party girls. I would imagine that Bush has nothing against good old fashion porn for the most part.

But again, what do I know? I know the past 3 years have not been different then the previous 8 as far as federal crackdowns on Porn.

Mike AI

11-10-2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by benc@Nov 10 2003, 09:56 AM
I agree with MikeAI.

There will be some more guys on the fringe busted, some that perhaps deserve it for running their business so wide open.

They arent going to try to bust hundreds of webmasters. Thats a fairy tale, scare tactic.

The bigger threat to the adult industry is Visa and flimsy patent holders. Acacia is only the first. There are others out there with half assed patents that watched companies like CE and Hustler welcome acacia with open arms and take the sweet deal and then sit back and watch their competition fucked with.

So I would say Bush is going to win. The only reason his father lost is because a conservative independent, Perot, took alot of the vote. Clinton won with only 41% or so.

Excellent points!

Amazing how webmasters will demonize Bush ( especially foreign webmasters), but won't look in our own backyard for the REAL threats to the industry.

FATPad

11-10-2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI+Nov 10 2003, 06:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Nov 10 2003, 06:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -FATPad@Nov 10 2003, 09:51 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 06:47 AM
The arguement that Bush is worth for the porn business then a democrat, falls on death ears. Over 3 years and the vaunted "ashcroft/bush/nazi crack down that all the chickne little liberals spout off about has NOT happened.
Do you think that's because he doesn't want to or because 9/11 took his attention away from it?

Does it matter? I make decisions on realities, not speculation.

However, knowing Bush's past, he was a party kind of guy, a frat boy, a member of skull and bones.... his daughters are party girls. I would imagine that Bush has nothing against good old fashion porn for the most part.

But again, what do I know? I know the past 3 years have not been different then the previous 8 as far as federal crackdowns on Porn.[/b][/quote]
Why wouldn't it matter? If the only reason Bush didn't get to prosecute was because other larger issues popped up, he may very well get the opportunity in the next 4 years if things calm down.

Bush may not have anything against porn personally, but a large group of people in the religious right do. He may not dislike porn personally, but do you think he'll alienate a powerful group in his party to stick up for porn? I would tend to believe he wouldn't, but I could be wrong.

I do not know who I will vote for, except that as usual, I will not vote for a democrat. That is all I know right now.

Mike AI

11-10-2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by FATPad+Nov 10 2003, 10:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FATPad @ Nov 10 2003, 10:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by -FATPad@Nov 10 2003, 09:51 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 06:47 AM
The arguement that Bush is worth for the porn business then a democrat, falls on death ears. Over 3 years and the vaunted "ashcroft/bush/nazi crack down that all the chickne little liberals spout off about has NOT happened.
Do you think that's because he doesn't want to or because 9/11 took his attention away from it?

Does it matter? I make decisions on realities, not speculation.

However, knowing Bush's past, he was a party kind of guy, a frat boy, a member of skull and bones.... his daughters are party girls. I would imagine that Bush has nothing against good old fashion porn for the most part.

But again, what do I know? I know the past 3 years have not been different then the previous 8 as far as federal crackdowns on Porn.
Why wouldn't it matter? If the only reason Bush didn't get to prosecute was because other larger issues popped up, he may very well get the opportunity in the next 4 years if things calm down.

Bush may not have anything against porn personally, but a large group of people in the religious right do. He may not dislike porn personally, but do you think he'll alienate a powerful group in his party to stick up for porn? I would tend to believe he wouldn't, but I could be wrong.

I do not know who I will vote for, except that as usual, I will not vote for a democrat. That is all I know right now.[/b][/quote]

You have fallen victem to the "religious right boogeyman". The religious right does not have NEARLY the power people think they have. It is a strawman set up by liberals and democrats to demonize Republicans.

Sure it does exist, but their pwoer is waning - and Bush knows this, plus they are like the left kooks.... who else are they going to vote for?

The terrorist thing is not going to be cleaned up in 4 years, it will probably take out entire lifetimes.... but it is something we need to do. If fighting this war properly means giving up the porn business, then I would sacrifice it to beat those bastards. Of course I do not think they are mutually excluisve.... I think the terrorists are against porn too - so by keeping porn on the net, I am doing my little part! :D ( this last part was a joke, so laugh and don't take is seriously!)

Almighty Colin

11-10-2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 09:47 AM
Knocking out 2 countries in the middle east during the his first term is what I call a GOOD START!!
This is why I like you so much, Mike :okthumb:

PornoDoggy

11-10-2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 09:47 AM
I am voting for Bush primarily due to his Foreign Policy and stance on the war on terrorism. If we get a democrat, the war on terrorism will face a MAJOR setback, which will lead to more Americans dead through out the world , and a longer war.

People forget that this is INDEED a war, one unlike any others.

Knocking out 2 countries in the middle east during the his first term is what I call a GOOD START!! If Bush wins a second term, I would not be sleeping to well if I was Assadd in Syria! :D

The arguement that Bush is worth for the porn business then a democrat, falls on death ears. Over 3 years and the vaunted "ashcroft/bush/nazi crack down that all the chickne little liberals spout off about has NOT happened. Sure a few people have been prosecuted, but with their extreme videos I beleive they deserve to be prosecuted. The Bush admin has let porn flow just like the Clinton admin ( and they have not sent tanks to kill children - waco!)

Real business people, which what porn people SHOULD be, understand that TAX cuts is what has been turning the economy around. A strong economy is better for business in the long run..... strong for ALL business!!

To make the decision even easier, the group of Democrates running is a HUGE joke.... I do not think one of them is fit to run Baskin Robbins much less the Country.

Bush has done a good job... I was not a fan of his early, but I am now.
Mikey, mikey, mikey ... Waco was about killing children? That's pretty fucking off base, even for you. I expect that kind of idiocy out of someone who displays his/her copy of the Turner Diaries directly underneath their shrine to Koerish and McVeigh and Weaver.

I give that arguement just about as much validity as I would a leftist moron arguing that Iraq was about killing Iraqi babies.

Knocking out two countries in the Middle East? Really? If you believe we have actually accomplished much to date, you've got somebody blowing happy smoke up your ass. Buff is a professed anarchist - I could understand why HE might find what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan attractive - I didn't know you swung that way too. I know that I feel much safer knowing that the world is safe from the vast quantities of WMD that the U.S. and its lackeys have uncovered in Iraq; and I'm damned glad that it's probably uncomfortable to be al Qaida or Taliban in Kabul.

If Bush wins a second term I wouldn't sleep well if I was the parent or significant other of American military personnel.

And if you take the fact that there have been no moves against the industry so far as evidence that the liberals were lying about the degree to which GW kneels in front of the cock of the religious right, you could become the next poster child for the Denial Society. Reverend Ashcroft has been very busy - but like any good whore, he's gonna dance with the fella that got him to the soiree.

Bobbleheads for Bush ...

Evil Chris

11-10-2003, 10:42 AM

It seems the longer GW is in office the worse off the US dollar becomes. I just hope (no matter who is in office) that this situation will spin around.

Mike, you may agree with his foreign policies (and he has done a good job of protecting Americans at home and abroad given the recent terror climates in the world) but much of the world still views GW as a bully and a thug. Even (maybe especially) those who politically support him.

It's a tough call for the next four years. If a Democrat gets in, I don't think you need to worry about any slack in foreign policies given the global situation. Whoever gets in next needs to prioritize jobs, the economy, education, and healthcare just as importantly as defense.

Oh, and recind the Patriot Act.

Mike AI

11-10-2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Evil Chris@Nov 10 2003, 10:50 AM
It seems the longer GW is in office the worse off the US dollar becomes. I just hope (no matter who is in office) that this situation will spin around.

Mike, you may agree with his foreign policies (and he has done a good job of protecting Americans at home and abroad given the recent terror climates in the world) but much of the world still views GW as a bully and a thug. Even (maybe especially) those who politically support him.

It's a tough call for the next four years. If a Democrat gets in, I don't think you need to worry about any slack in foreign policies given the global situation. Whoever gets in next needs to prioritize jobs, the economy, education, and healthcare just as importantly as defense.

Oh, and recind the Patriot Act.

I would like to think that any demorate elected would have to follow Bush's lead on the war on terror, but I know that won't happen.

As far as jobs, and the economy - look around every economic indicator is UP - WAY up! Including jobs.

The dollar has been purposely dropped.... I know being Canadian being paid in dollars it sucks, but its good for the US right now.

I do agree about the Patriot Act. It is overbroad, something I could live with if and only if it was being applied to Terrorist or those directly supporting terrorist. However, it is now being applied to average US citizens on cases that have NOTHING to do with terrorism! It need to be modified IMMEDIATELY!!

See Chris, we do see eye to eye on something! :D

spazlabz

11-10-2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI+Nov 10 2003, 07:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Nov 10 2003, 07:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -FATPad@Nov 10 2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by -Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by -FATPad@Nov 10 2003, 09:51 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 06:47 AM
The arguement that Bush is worth for the porn business then a democrat, falls on death ears. Over 3 years and the vaunted "ashcroft/bush/nazi crack down that all the chickne little liberals spout off about has NOT happened.
Do you think that's because he doesn't want to or because 9/11 took his attention away from it?

Does it matter? I make decisions on realities, not speculation.

However, knowing Bush's past, he was a party kind of guy, a frat boy, a member of skull and bones.... his daughters are party girls. I would imagine that Bush has nothing against good old fashion porn for the most part.

But again, what do I know? I know the past 3 years have not been different then the previous 8 as far as federal crackdowns on Porn.
Why wouldn't it matter? If the only reason Bush didn't get to prosecute was because other larger issues popped up, he may very well get the opportunity in the next 4 years if things calm down.

Bush may not have anything against porn personally, but a large group of people in the religious right do. He may not dislike porn personally, but do you think he'll alienate a powerful group in his party to stick up for porn? I would tend to believe he wouldn't, but I could be wrong.

I do not know who I will vote for, except that as usual, I will not vote for a democrat. That is all I know right now.

You have fallen victem to the "religious right boogeyman". The religious right does not have NEARLY the power people think they have. It is a strawman set up by liberals and democrats to demonize Republicans.

Sure it does exist, but their pwoer is waning - and Bush knows this, plus they are like the left kooks.... who else are they going to vote for?

The terrorist thing is not going to be cleaned up in 4 years, it will probably take out entire lifetimes.... but it is something we need to do. If fighting this war properly means giving up the porn business, then I would sacrifice it to beat those bastards. Of course I do not think they are mutually excluisve.... I think the terrorists are against porn too - so by keeping porn on the net, I am doing my little part! :D ( this last part was a joke, so laugh and don't take is seriously!)[/b][/quote]
I had written a big long winded reply to this, but in keeping with Serges 'No one reads anything longer than 5 lines' approach I will say this.
Bush (and all conservative republicans) gets a huge amount of money from the far right.
That money buys them a lot of influence (he will be needing it again in '04)
The recent crackdown on the extreme side of our business is 'Just The Start' and at least one federal prosecuter has said that even playboy could be considered obscene.
It's great that I can have a completely opposite view as someone else in this business, and still respect them as a person. I sure wish the religeous right felt the same way

spaz

PornoDoggy

11-10-2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 10:58 AM
I do agree about the Patriot Act. It is overbroad, something I could live with if and only if it was being applied to Terrorist or those directly supporting terrorist. However, it is now being applied to average US citizens on cases that have NOTHING to do with terrorism! It need to be modified IMMEDIATELY!!

See Chris, we do see eye to eye on something! :D
12cliches gonna call you a liberal pretty soon ...

Mike AI

11-10-2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by spazlabz@Nov 10 2003, 11:01 AM

The recent crackdown on the extreme side of our business is 'Just The Start' and at least one federal prosecuter has said that even playboy could be considered obscene.

Fortunately we live in a nation where the opinion of Federal Prosecutors does not matter. There have bee na few obscenity cases that have been LOST because the Country is ready for porn.

Porn is mainstream now.... at least the normal old fashion porn. ( skat, pissing, beastie, rape, things like this will still get Federal attention).

The cat is out of the bag - HARDCORE porn is broadcasted to almost every house in the US through cable and Sat, it is in every hotel room in almsot every county in the Nation.

You guys need to find a new boogie man!

Fletch XXX

11-10-2003, 10:59 AM

my opinion on the current admin could land me in prison.

FATPad

11-10-2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI+Nov 10 2003, 07:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Nov 10 2003, 07:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -FATPad@Nov 10 2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by -Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by -FATPad@Nov 10 2003, 09:51 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 06:47 AM
The arguement that Bush is worth for the porn business then a democrat, falls on death ears. Over 3 years and the vaunted "ashcroft/bush/nazi crack down that all the chickne little liberals spout off about has NOT happened.
Do you think that's because he doesn't want to or because 9/11 took his attention away from it?

Does it matter? I make decisions on realities, not speculation.

However, knowing Bush's past, he was a party kind of guy, a frat boy, a member of skull and bones.... his daughters are party girls. I would imagine that Bush has nothing against good old fashion porn for the most part.

But again, what do I know? I know the past 3 years have not been different then the previous 8 as far as federal crackdowns on Porn.
Why wouldn't it matter? If the only reason Bush didn't get to prosecute was because other larger issues popped up, he may very well get the opportunity in the next 4 years if things calm down.

Bush may not have anything against porn personally, but a large group of people in the religious right do. He may not dislike porn personally, but do you think he'll alienate a powerful group in his party to stick up for porn? I would tend to believe he wouldn't, but I could be wrong.

I do not know who I will vote for, except that as usual, I will not vote for a democrat. That is all I know right now.

You have fallen victem to the "religious right boogeyman". The religious right does not have NEARLY the power people think they have. It is a strawman set up by liberals and democrats to demonize Republicans.

Sure it does exist, but their pwoer is waning - and Bush knows this, plus they are like the left kooks.... who else are they going to vote for?

The terrorist thing is not going to be cleaned up in 4 years, it will probably take out entire lifetimes.... but it is something we need to do. If fighting this war properly means giving up the porn business, then I would sacrifice it to beat those bastards. Of course I do not think they are mutually excluisve.... I think the terrorists are against porn too - so by keeping porn on the net, I am doing my little part! :D ( this last part was a joke, so laugh and don't take is seriously!)[/b][/quote]
I agree with almost all your posts usually, but while I don't think the religious right is incredibly powerful, I do think it does have some influence. Even if Bush just wants to toss them a bone, the porn industry is a good one. Appease the right, and bleat about "protecting the children" to the general public like all anti-porn people do to make themselves look better.

And with very exceptions, no one will stand up for porn. The only help this industry would get would actually be from the far left kooks like the ACLU. ;)

spazlabz

11-10-2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI+Nov 10 2003, 08:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ Nov 10 2003, 08:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--spazlabz@Nov 10 2003, 11:01 AM

The recent crackdown on the extreme side of our business is 'Just The Start' and at least one federal prosecuter has said that even playboy could be considered obscene.

Fortunately we live in a nation where the opinion of Federal Prosecutors does not matter. There have bee na few obscenity cases that have been LOST because the Country is ready for porn.

Porn is mainstream now.... at least the normal old fashion porn. ( skat, pissing, beastie, rape, things like this will still get Federal attention).

The cat is out of the bag - HARDCORE porn is broadcasted to almost every house in the US through cable and Sat, it is in every hotel room in almsot every county in the Nation.

You guys need to find a new boogie man![/b][/quote]
I will find myself a new boogeyman when Ashcroft (a Bush appointee)takes down that rediculous toga on Lady Justice
and Bush stops approving press releases on things like "Pornography Awareness Week", you may view it as nothing. I view it as a portent to what is inside of his mind. Where his priorities are. Porn is Mainstream to open minded people who believe in personal freedoms, not the most powerful and richest lobbying group in our great nation
The Christian Coalition.

spaz

Evil Chris

11-10-2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 11:58 AM
I would like to think that any demorate elected would have to follow Bush's lead on the war on terror, but I know that won't happen.
Why not? If it remains a primary concern for the nation, then shouldn't it remain an important priority for whomever is in power?

Mike AI

11-10-2003, 11:08 AM

richest lobbying group in our great nation
The Christian Coalition.

Not even close. AARP is much larger and more powerful. So is the NRA, and a few dozen other special interests.

Do you not think that ANY professional politician would trade going after Porn companies in return for getting elected. Democrates are just as bad.

Face it, NO politician is going to say they are pro-porn, or support peoples right to porn. We are OUTLAWS to all of them.

Call up any of the HQs for the democratic candidates, ask them what their posistion on porn is.

spazlabz

11-10-2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 08:16 AM
richest lobbying group in our great nation
The Christian Coalition.

Not even close. AARP is much larger and more powerful. So is the NRA, and a few dozen other special interests.

And those aren't damn near the same thing? Ask a majority of AARP members if they attend church regularly. I know, speculation, but just what do you seriously think the answer would be? & in what percentages? The NRA I doudt would care at all about an issue of pornography. Their agenda is pretty clear, and they are vocal about their issues. Personally if I owned guns I would be a card carrying member of the NRA, unless they decided to move away from their core issues.
Ok, I accept it MikeAI, you and I strongly disagree on this issue and neither of us is going to change the others minds with our points, counter points debate. I am just glad we are able to have one.
I know when I am asked, I tell people the following about my political views. I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate..........I am an independant.

spaz

Mike AI

11-10-2003, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by spazlabz+Nov 10 2003, 11:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (spazlabz @ Nov 10 2003, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Mike AI@Nov 10 2003, 08:16 AM
richest lobbying group in our great nation
The Christian Coalition.

Not even close. AARP is much larger and more powerful. So is the NRA, and a few dozen other special interests.

And those aren't damn near the same thing? Ask a majority of AARP members if they attend church regularly. I know, speculation, but just what do you seriously think the answer would be? & in what percentages? The NRA I doudt would care at all about an issue of pornography. Their agenda is pretty clear, and they are vocal about their issues. Personally if I owned guns I would be a card carrying member of the NRA, unless they decided to move away from their core issues.
Ok, I accept it MikeAI, you and I strongly disagree on this issue and neither of us is going to change the others minds with our points, counter points debate. I am just glad we are able to have one.
I know when I am asked, I tell people the following about my political views. I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate..........I am an independant.

spaz[/b][/quote]

Funny cause I consider myself a fiscal conservative, and a social moderate. I am of course Hawkish on Foreign policy as well.

BTW AARP a majority of the time throw their support behnd Democrats, and thier candidates.

Do not confuse people who go to church, or who consider themselves Christian with the Christian Right. I consider myself Christian, attend church from time to time and so do a VAST majority of this nation.

It is the small group who wants to tell everyone how to live who the problem lies with - and its not just Christians, but lots of other groups as well.

Forest

11-10-2003, 12:06 PM

well so far according to the above poll the dems would win the vote

well atleast until they count the votes in florida

:yowsa: :agrin: :lol:

Last edited by Forest at Nov 10 2003, 12:14 PM

Forest

11-10-2003, 12:08 PM

the christian coalition has a TON of power and sway but not nearly as much money as people think

they just think they have god on their side

codymc12

11-10-2003, 12:08 PM

In my opinion, as far as prosecutions of the porn industry go, it's not who's elected president that is the concern - it's who is running the DOJ. The job of the President covers far far far more than what the DOJ is up to - you have to be more concerned with who actually has the time to run that particular show.

Ashcroft is bad news. Even Phyllis Schlafy said he was 'uptight' - now that's saying something!

Forest

11-10-2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by codymc12@Nov 10 2003, 12:16 PM
In my opinion, as far as prosecutions of the porn industry go, it's not who's elected president that is the concern - it's who is running the DOJ. The job of the President covers far far far more than what the DOJ is up to - you have to be more concerned with who actually has the time to run that particular show.

Ashcroft is bad news. Even Phyllis Schlafy said he was 'uptight' - now that's saying something!
verry true but the more conservative the president the more conservative the nomination for the position

Forest

11-10-2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Forest@Nov 10 2003, 06:58 AM
41% the Democratic nominee, whoever that turns out to be.

that scares me

voting for a party not a person

PornoDoggy

11-10-2003, 12:33 PM

Well, if you'd had a "too early to tell" option in the poll, I wouldn't have voted for the Democrats in this poll.

AARP and the NRA, among others, are definitely bigger than any single organization shilling for the Christian mullahs. Whether they are bigger than the network of organizations dedicated to "taking America back" from gawdlessness is a completely different question.

I also agree that only a moron would conclude that everyone who is a Christian is a member of the religious right (who are no longer just limited to Christians). Oddly enough, I have never seen that particular moronic generalization around here.

I'm a fiscal moderate, social liberal, and fairly hawkish on foreign policy myself.

Last edited by PornoDoggy at Nov 10 2003, 12:42 PM

Carrie

11-10-2003, 03:59 PM

I just have two simple points to make.

1. The downturn in the economy was due directly to the short-term 10 year bonds that Clinton used during his term. Those bonds came due during George's term, as they were supposed to; making the following president "look bad" when compared to Clinton. (It's all about the legacy, after all.)
Bush did a fantastic job of turning that around despite the odds and despite the incredible hit that the country took from 9/11. The economy is up, the housing market is up, the job rate is up.

2. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Porn has no friends in any party. It's not a Republican thing, it's not a Democratic thing, it's a PORN thing. I still have yet to find one person who can get a Congressman or Senator from either side of the aisle to stand up publically and say that he wholeheartedly supports porn, or that he'd be happy to find his daughter getting boned in the ass by Max Hardcore. It's just not going to happen.
You seriously need to take the blinders off if you think that having a Democrat in office would make your position as a pornographer any safer.

Mike AI

11-10-2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 10 2003, 04:07 PM
I just have two simple points to make.

1. The downturn in the economy was due directly to the short-term 10 year bonds that Clinton used during his term. Those bonds came due during George's term, as they were supposed to; making the following president "look bad" when compared to Clinton. (It's all about the legacy, after all.)
Bush did a fantastic job of turning that around despite the odds and despite the incredible hit that the country took from 9/11. The economy is up, the housing market is up, the job rate is up.

2. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Porn has no friends in any party. It's not a Republican thing, it's not a Democratic thing, it's a PORN thing. I still have yet to find one person who can get a Congressman or Senator from either side of the aisle to stand up publically and say that he wholeheartedly supports porn, or that he'd be happy to find his daughter getting boned in the ass by Max Hardcore. It's just not going to happen.
You seriously need to take the blinders off if you think that having a Democrat in office would make your position as a pornographer any safer.

Good post Carrie. I agree with both points!

Forest

11-10-2003, 04:18 PM

i must say im surprised by the polling results here

i would have thought G.W. would have been more heavily voted on

PornoDoggy

11-10-2003, 04:33 PM

Oh, gawdamitey I knew the "Clinton did it" crowd would have to get into the act sooner or later ... :rolleyes:

Carrie, you left off the part in the Clinton plot to make his successor look bad where he had a secret contingency plan to avoid doing that if he was succeeded by Hilary - get your conspiracies correct. If you're going to post claptrap like that, you really ought to be careful about accusing ANYONE of a political opinion based on fantasy - it appears you live out there where Torone and 12cliches hide from the liberal conspiracy microwave transmissions. :ph34r:

As far just exactly who is wearing the blinders is obviously a subject of debate.

Just because neither party is "pro" porn doesn't mean that the threat is equal. Last time I checked there wasn't a significant portion of the core constituency for ANY of the Democrats currently in the field who consider porn a threat equal to al Qaida. I realize that I'm guilty of getting some of my news from CNN and NPR, but I'm hard-pressed to think of when exactly Janet Reno convenied a group of U.S. Attorneys for a brainstorming session about taking on the porn industry. But hey, that's okay - maybe I'm just worried about what would happen if they decided to make me the target of one of their show investigations/prosecutions.

Of course, I suppose if I were a conservative Republican I'd be much more safe.

FATPad

11-10-2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 10 2003, 01:07 PM
I just have two simple points to make.

1. The downturn in the economy was due directly to the short-term 10 year bonds that Clinton used during his term. Those bonds came due during George's term, as they were supposed to; making the following president "look bad" when compared to Clinton. (It's all about the legacy, after all.)
Bush did a fantastic job of turning that around despite the odds and despite the incredible hit that the country took from 9/11. The economy is up, the housing market is up, the job rate is up.

2. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Porn has no friends in any party. It's not a Republican thing, it's not a Democratic thing, it's a PORN thing. I still have yet to find one person who can get a Congressman or Senator from either side of the aisle to stand up publically and say that he wholeheartedly supports porn, or that he'd be happy to find his daughter getting boned in the ass by Max Hardcore. It's just not going to happen.
You seriously need to take the blinders off if you think that having a Democrat in office would make your position as a pornographer any safer.
No one thinks anyone will stand up and say they are pro-porn.

But if faced with a choice of people who don't care and don't think prosecuting porn sites is a priority or people who are so scared of nudity they have to cover up statues with drapes and do things like create "Pornography Protection Week", the former is a safer choice.

Forest

11-10-2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by FATPad@Nov 10 2003, 04:45 PM
"Pornography Protection Week", the former is a safer choice.
collage kids would turn out in force for this

not a bad idea

:okthumb:

PornoDoggy

11-10-2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by FATPad@Nov 10 2003, 04:45 PM
No one thinks anyone will stand up and say they are pro-porn.

But if faced with a choice of people who don't care and don't think prosecuting porn sites is a priority or people who are so scared of nudity they have to cover up statues with drapes and do things like create "Pornography Protection Week", the former is a safer choice.
Well said.

Hubby

11-10-2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 10 2003, 01:41 PM
Oh, gawdamitey I knew the "Clinton did it" crowd would have to get into the act sooner or later ... :rolleyes:

Carrie, you left off the part in the Clinton plot to make his successor look bad where he had a secret contingency plan to avoid doing that if he was succeeded by Hilary - get your conspiracies correct. If you're going to post claptrap like that, you really ought to be careful about accusing ANYONE of a political opinion based on fantasy - it appears you live out there where Torone and 12cliches hide from the liberal conspiracy microwave transmissions. :ph34r:

As far just exactly who is wearing the blinders is obviously a subject of debate.

PD, you need to check your facts instead of going straight to the "it's a conspiracy". Clinton did take out the short term bonds, knowing that they would come due on the next Pres. I could be wrong, but I don't think that Hilary planned on running for Pres for at least one term after Bill, so he didn't care who the bonds came due on. He just wanted him-self to look good. Every Pres wants to make a lasting good impression on history, it's just the way that they go about trying to do it that bugs me.

Torone

11-10-2003, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by benc@Nov 10 2003, 08:56 AM
I agree with MikeAI.

There will be some more guys on the fringe busted, some that perhaps deserve it for running their business so wide open.

They arent going to try to bust hundreds of webmasters. Thats a fairy tale, scare tactic.

The bigger threat to the adult industry is Visa and flimsy patent holders. Acacia is only the first. There are others out there with half assed patents that watched companies like CE and Hustler welcome acacia with open arms and take the sweet deal and then sit back and watch their competition fucked with.

So I would say Bush is going to win. The only reason his father lost is because a conservative independent, Perot, took alot of the vote. Clinton won with only 41% or so.
Actually, Clinton won with less than 25% of the eligible voters. Less than half voted, less than half of those voted for him.

BTW, Mike almost had it right. The 'attack on porn' IS just a scare tactic. Look at who has actually been prosecuted and why. I am surprised that so many of you just buy it. You can't show one instance where the Democommies have stood up and told the truth since Florida 2000...In fact, it is rapidly becoming more than a joke that you can tell if a Dem politician is lying simply by watching his/her mouth (if it's moving, he/she is lying). :biglaugh:

PornoDoggy

11-10-2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Hubby+Nov 10 2003, 06:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hubby @ Nov 10 2003, 06:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--PornoDoggy@Nov 10 2003, 01:41 PM
Oh, gawdamitey I knew the "Clinton did it" crowd would have to get into the act sooner or later ... :rolleyes:

Carrie, you left off the part in the Clinton plot to make his successor look bad where he had a secret contingency plan to avoid doing that if he was succeeded by Hilary - get your conspiracies correct. If you're going to post claptrap like that, you really ought to be careful about accusing ANYONE of a political opinion based on fantasy - it appears you live out there where Torone and 12cliches hide from the liberal conspiracy microwave transmissions. :ph34r:

As far just exactly who is wearing the blinders is obviously a subject of debate.

PD, you need to check your facts instead of going straight to the "it's a conspiracy". Clinton did take out the short term bonds, knowing that they would come due on the next Pres. I could be wrong, but I don't think that Hilary planned on running for Pres for at least one term after Bill, so he didn't care who the bonds came due on. He just wanted him-self to look good. Every Pres wants to make a lasting good impression on history, it's just the way that they go about trying to do it that bugs me.[/b][/quote]
Mr. Carrie, I'm sorry, Mrs. Carrie posted nothing worthy of checking facts over. Even if I did "check facts", it's very unlikely I would get them from the same radio frequency or newsletter from Idaho that y'all seem to. Besides, I'm hot on the trail of proving an even more plausible theory - that Elvis is alive and living in Area 51 as Tupac's domestic partner.

I understand that it's a free country and you have the right to believe anything you want - not even the Republican Right has proposed an amendment to abolish stupid (they need the votes). But gimme a break, huh?

If she had limited the allegations to manipulation of the markets to create a boom for political purposes, she might have actually fooled somebody into taking it seriously. She tipped her hand when it went off into the "deliberately wanted his successor to fail" malarkey. That kind of stupidity - like "Bush was behind 9/11", "Johnson assassinated Kennedy", "All liberals are traitors", "all conservatives are fascists" tripe plays well with mindless haters who want an opportunity to say "Amen" to preprogrammed sound bytes that substitute for the thoughts they are either discomforted by (or incapbable of forming).

It also may very well qualify as one of the outright idiotic things I've seen posted on Oprano - and I say that even after Torone* entered the thread. :D

(*You doing okay, old man?)

Winetalk.com

11-10-2003, 07:41 PM

I don;t know if I'm gonna vote for Bush....maybe I just go get drunk instead....but I won't vote for Democrats...

Hubby

11-10-2003, 11:21 PM

PD, you need to check your facts instead of going straight to the "it's a conspiracy". Clinton did take out the short term bonds, knowing that they would come due on the next Pres. I could be wrong, but I don't think that Hilary planned on running for Pres for at least one term after Bill, so he didn't care who the bonds came due on. He just wanted him-self to look good. Every Pres wants to make a lasting good impression on history, it's just the way that they go about trying to do it that bugs me.
Mr. Carrie, I'm sorry, Mrs. Carrie posted nothing worthy of checking facts over. Even if I did "check facts", it's very unlikely I would get them from the same radio frequency or newsletter from Idaho that y'all seem to. Besides, I'm hot on the trail of proving an even more plausible theory - that Elvis is alive and living in Area 51 as Tupac's domestic partner.

I understand that it's a free country and you have the right to believe anything you want - not even the Republican Right has proposed an amendment to abolish stupid (they need the votes). But gimme a break, huh?

If she had limited the allegations to manipulation of the markets to create a boom for political purposes, she might have actually fooled somebody into taking it seriously. She tipped her hand when it went off into the "deliberately wanted his successor to fail" malarkey. That kind of stupidity - like "Bush was behind 9/11", "Johnson assassinated Kennedy", "All liberals are traitors", "all conservatives are fascists" tripe plays well with mindless haters who want an opportunity to say "Amen" to preprogrammed sound bytes that substitute for the thoughts they are either discomforted by (or incapbable of forming).

It also may very well qualify as one of the outright idiotic things I've seen posted on Oprano - and I say that even after Torone* entered the thread. :D

(*You doing okay, old man?)[/QUOTE]

You don't need to get it from any radio frequency. It is a matter of public record that Pres. Clinton signed for the short term bonds. He isn't a fool, he knew exactly what he was doing. He made a calculated move to boost the economy, and at the same time make himself look better than the next guy, so to speak.

Carrie

11-10-2003, 11:40 PM

Okay PD, let's take the rhetoric out of it, shall we?

1. Did or did not Clinton introduce short-term, 10-year bonds during his time in office?
2. Did or did not those bonds come to maturity during Bush's time in office?

My answer to both is yes.
And regardless of the reasoning behind it, those bonds' maturity caused a downturn in the economy.

PornoDoggy

11-10-2003, 11:56 PM

Mr. Carrie, I don't dispute the FACTS.

Bill Clinton is a politician. He did some things to get the economy going, and to make himself look good. Holy fucking politician, batboy!!

What a shocking, disgusting thing. He should have avoided attempting to make himself look good, in the way the faux Texan currently occupying the office has over the tax cuts has, right? And while you're at it, do you want to compare the numbers "due" during the term of the next guy (or his grandson) between the current deficit and some short-term bonds?. No ... I didn't think so.

Now, I realize that there is a certain element who read some diabolical purpose into the fact that Bill Clinton draws breath. There are people on the left in this country who think the same way about George Bush. In other words, there are morons on both sides of every issue.

When you go beyond the facts and theorize about Clinton's "deliberate attempt to make the next President look bad to ensure his legacy" you have found the moron line, and smashed through it with flying colors.

Last edited by PornoDoggy at Nov 11 2003, 12:06 AM

PornoDoggy

11-11-2003, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Carrie@Nov 10 2003, 11:48 PM
Okay PD, let's take the rhetoric out of it, shall we?

1. Did or did not Clinton introduce short-term, 10-year bonds during his time in office?
2. Did or did not those bonds come to maturity during Bush's time in office?

My answer to both is yes.
And regardless of the reasoning behind it, those bonds' maturity caused a downturn in the economy.
Mrs. Carrie, as I said before - you tipped the deck you are playing with in your initial post - and they are crazy 8's. So calling on ME to take the rhetoric out of it is absurd.

The bonds are not the only cause of the downturn in the economy. Sure, it's the only one you can hang on Clinton - but gimme a break, huh?

MattK

11-11-2003, 12:42 AM

At a UK sportsbook (Bet 365 (http://www.bet365.com)), the democrats were recently 6/4 (+150) underdogs to win the 2004 election and the republicans were 1/2 (-200)

But in the past few weeks the odds for the democrats have improved to 5/4 (+125).

Personally, I think that as the situation in Iraq gets worse and as the economy starts to go down again, Bush's approval rating will get lower and he will lose in 2004.

Forest

11-11-2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Nov 10 2003, 07:49 PM
I don;t know if I'm gonna vote for Bush....maybe I just go get drunk instead....but I won't vote for Democrats...
I like the getting drunk idea

:bdance: :stout: :hic:

Carrie

11-11-2003, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Nov 11 2003, 12:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ Nov 11 2003, 12:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Nov 10 2003, 11:48 PM
Okay PD, let's take the rhetoric out of it, shall we?

1. Did or did not Clinton introduce short-term, 10-year bonds during his time in office?
2. Did or did not those bonds come to maturity during Bush's time in office?

My answer to both is yes.
And regardless of the reasoning behind it, those bonds' maturity caused a downturn in the economy.
Mrs. Carrie, as I said before - you tipped the deck you are playing with in your initial post - and they are crazy 8's. So calling on ME to take the rhetoric out of it is absurd.

The bonds are not the only cause of the downturn in the economy. Sure, it's the only one you can hang on Clinton - but gimme a break, huh?[/b][/quote]
PD I enjoy lively debates with you, knowing darn well that we keep it separate from anything else.
But the "moron" and Confucyanistic "Ms. Carrie" labels are getting tiring and offensive. It seems that I am the only one keeping it separate here.

If you want to debate my opinions, that's fine. You want to debate my facts, that's fine. I'm all for it.

But the buck stops with the personal name-calling.
You don't see me sitting here repeatedly calling *you* a moron, or saying that you've smashed through the moron border with flying colors... yet you feel fine spewing that shit at me.

Kinda says something, I think.
I'll see you in another thread when you're done throwing labels around and inferring that I am stupid for my opinions.

Oh, and for your statistical knowledge, I am not a Republican, nor am I Christian. So stuff that in your pre-conceived notion pipe and smoke it.

PornoDoggy

11-11-2003, 01:15 AM

I have suspected for a long time that the support for Bush was as shallow as it was for his father.

A lot will depend on who the Democrats nominate, and whether they close ranks after the primaries.

A lot will also depend on how much Bush can keep the reigns on the neoconservatives in Congress, particularly the folks in the House - which may draw him criticism from his base on the far right. That could be a tough juggling act if things stay close - because pandering to the far right too much will alienate more of the center, who I think are far more cynical about his so-called compassionate conservatism; and it will motivate the left even more.

A lot will depend on the economy. A lot will depend on the war - and while those who believe that they have a better-than-average understanding of real politik may not believe it, Joe Schmo out on the street is just as likely to be feeling mislead and manipulated as he is glad we did what we did.

At this point in time, I think it is too close to call - although if you forced me to make a choice I think he'd win again, in just as much of a squeaker as last time. There is, however, a lot of time between now and the election - and if I were him, I think I'd be very jealous of a parlimentary leader who could call a snap election right about now.

PornoDoggy

11-11-2003, 01:31 AM

Originally posted by Carrie+Nov 11 2003, 01:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Carrie @ Nov 11 2003, 01:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Originally posted by -PornoDoggy@Nov 11 2003, 12:08 AM
<!--QuoteBegin--Carrie@Nov 10 2003, 11:48 PM
Okay PD, let's take the rhetoric out of it, shall we?

1. Did or did not Clinton introduce short-term, 10-year bonds during his time in office?
2. Did or did not those bonds come to maturity during Bush's time in office?

My answer to both is yes.
And regardless of the reasoning behind it, those bonds' maturity caused a downturn in the economy.
Mrs. Carrie, as I said before - you tipped the deck you are playing with in your initial post - and they are crazy 8's. So calling on ME to take the rhetoric out of it is absurd.

The bonds are not the only cause of the downturn in the economy. Sure, it's the only one you can hang on Clinton - but gimme a break, huh?
PD I enjoy lively debates with you, knowing darn well that we keep it separate from anything else.
But the "moron" and Confucyanistic "Ms. Carrie" labels are getting tiring and offensive. It seems that I am the only one keeping it separate here.

If you want to debate my opinions, that's fine. You want to debate my facts, that's fine. I'm all for it.

But the buck stops with the personal name-calling.
You don't see me sitting here repeatedly calling *you* a moron, or saying that you've smashed through the moron border with flying colors... yet you feel fine spewing that shit at me.

Kinda says something, I think.
I'll see you in another thread when you're done throwing labels around and inferring that I am stupid for my opinions.

Oh, and for your statistical knowledge, I am not a Republican, nor am I Christian. So stuff that in your pre-conceived notion pipe and smoke it.[/b][/quote]
First of all, you do know that I most strongly believe in this Pearl of KK's"One day you're going to learn that nothing is personal on a message board. "

Second, I ain't calling ANYONE Hubby - so Mr. and Mrs. Carrie seemed appropriate. Sorry if you took offense at it.

Carrie, you took the obvious - Clinton approved the bonds and wanted to take credit for the economy - and spun it to the absurd conclusion that it was a deliberate attempt by Clinton to make his successor look bad. I did not say a single thing to you that I would not have said to anyone on GFY who concluded that Bush allowed 9/11 in order to garner profits for his oil interests or for Haliburton. I consider the conclusion you reached/allegation you made cut from the exact same cloth, and treated it with the dignity that I thnk it deserved.

I know fully well you aren't a Republican - and I never gave your religious afiliation a thought.