Nice to see you looking into Reid. I find him extremely creepy and I'm not surprised it's born out by his behavior.

Dave

"Called Fed Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, a "hack" for "urging Congress to deal quickly with the financial problems facing Social Security and Medicare."

Nice selective bit of editing. Why didn't you mention this part of Reids quote about Greenspan from the same article:

"Why doesn't he respond to the Republicans and tell them the big problem here is the debt that this administration [has] created?" he said. "We had a $7 trillion-dollar surplus when Bush took office. Now we have a $3 or $4 trillion-dollar deficit. That's, in fact, what Greenspan should be telling people."

Well I don't know about you, but a guy who is suppposed to be knowledgeable about money and then supports large tax cuts based on a few quarters of surpluses is not a man who is careful with America's budget.

And when just a couple short years later he now says America can't afford anything, but can't even consider that his earlier support of tax cuts are a big part of the reason we have deficits, well, it's a bit hard to take him seriously.

Out here on the West Coast we have a name for people who go massively in debt when they have a couple good months of income and then refuse to take any blame, we call them "hacks". Perhaps in other parts of the country it makes you a national treasure of financial wisdom...

BTP, you have no grasp of basic economics at all, do you?

There are two ways out of debt. One is to cut expenses. The other is to increase income. Even better is to do both.

Greenspan - like any sensible economist - is a big supporter of the income increase option. Cutting taxes makes more money for the government because the economy grows and the government ends up making more money per capita from the higher GDP. This is MORE desirable than cutting expenses, because it also results in the average citizen having more money in his pocket with the attendant benefits for the economy for everyone. Cutting government expenses is also desirable, but it has a less profound and long-lasting impact on the deficit and very little impact on the economy as a whole.

So Greenspan is exactly right, the first priority is cutting taxes to stimulate the economy and increase government revenue. Then all you have to do is keep government spending level or cut is slightly - as Bush is trying to do - and given a few years the economic growth is enough to make the deficit go away.

Dave

Cutting taxes to increase revenue is not "basic economics."

It may well be an economic theory, one which bright people take different sides on.

Don't assume your economics are the only economics, Dave. Smart people from the beginning of time have tried to figure out the markets only to discover that it's an artform at best: not a hard science, as you imply.

It's born out by working whenever it's been tested, Eric. That's good enough for me to make it a basic principle of economics, and it seems to be good enough for Alan Greenspan as well.

Dave

I disagree, but I don't have time to get into this with you right now.

To test a hypothesis using calculus, the extremes are tested. So what are the extremes of taxation? One extreme is for the government to impose a tax of 100%. The other is for the government to impose little or no tax at all. The first is what the Soviet Union did. The second is what the Founders of this country did. When settling for a compromise keep in mind a government tends to always want more... and more... -- and what is WORSE... will tend to WASTE more... and more...

Of course, the problem we have now is that for years we have allowed those we send to Washington to serve us -- to instead serve the 10,000 lobbyists who suck at the teats of the US Treasury. We will never have a properly functioning economy in this country until we get rid of the parasites in Washington who invest a few hundred thousand in political campaigns and take billions (soon to be trillions) out of our pockets in return.

So you're suggesting more campaign finance reform?

Reid is loonier than Daschale was.

But, Reid just won re-election in a swing state, so he won;t be up for re-election until 2010.

Daschale, OTOH, was in a Red state...

IOW, Reid is relatively safe to make assinine comments for the next 5 years or so. Then he'll have to pose as a "moderate Mormon" again...

Eric -- there are ways to get the parasites out of politics without "more campaign finance reform" which isn't really reform at all. How about "lobbyist reform" which could be done in several ways. There are many ways to skin this cat if we had the will as voters to do it.

"Lobbyist reform" would be extremely difficult without jerking with constiutional rights.

But you're right about the real answer: the voters don't have the will to vote out those that are beholden to special interests on both sides of the aisle.

Eric -- Let's not forget we have amended the Constitution 27 times. We do it when we believe it is necessary for the benefit of the country.

to quote the vice president, on the floor of the united states senate, no less, go fu*k yourself.

A basic problem in this country is we have too many imbeciles who don't understand the issues. They live off of meaningless one-liners which only shows their stupidity.

BTP:

The fact is, Reid called Greenspan a "hack," for no other reason than the fact that Greenspan had the temerity to go before congress and not critisize the President. Senator Reid was hoping for that, but, instead, heard a message challenging the congress to control their spending.

The fact is, controlling spending in Washington is important and ALSO has an impact upon the deficit. And it's not as if Greenspan never critisizes the President's policies.

Reid is just very unprofessional in his behaviour. If all it takes to be a Senate Minority Leader is to stand up and call people names, then I want that job.

David

Wow,

Finally someone is willing to take on the power hungry abuses of a Democratic senate completely out of control with their quaint missives of 'checks and balances'. You are right. Reid is the only guy in the world right now with the balls to stand up to the American Taliban (the Christian Right) and you want to attack him.

The Dems hold NO power right now. The GOP has it all. the Supreme Court, the majority or governorships, the senate, the house, the presidency.

thank god for Reid, and someone besides Al Franken being willing to take on this administration.

*oh, and your Gingrich reference as being someone Dems love to hate. Keep in mind that is because he worked tirelessly to have President Clinton kicked out of office for having an affair...

while.... stay with me on this.......

HE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR HIMSELF

Death to the Taliban
and Death to the American Taliban too

stand up and take your country back!

As a dedicated enemy of the current administration (ANY current administration, actually) and a get-go Bush loather, I have to admit that it frustrates the bejesus out of me that the Dems seem to be so feckless and clueless right now. It's like, the moment Bill left, the whole party just collapsed. But I agree with Lono, in that it's a good thing someone is standing up to the one-party rule the GOP has instituted, driven by the fundamentalist maniacs of the far reich. How I wish that Ross Perot had been a serious founder of a 3rd American political party, instead of just a wealthy nut-case! Realcon also has a good point, that too many of these scumbags up on the Hill (of BOTH parties) are half-wits - ignorant yet paradoxically cunning as long as their self-interest is at stake - who do nothing but think and speak in sound bites, because that's all they're capable of. I have to say that most of all I think Realcon has another excellent point (as does Eric), which is that one of the biggest worms gnawing at the root of state is lobbying, and unless and until lobbying and lobbyists are utterly banned, we will not and can not have a decent, honest, and honorable government dedicated to the good of the people instead of the bank accounts of the politicians and their special interest buddies who bought them their positions. This may, indeed, require some imaginative pruning of constitutional rights, but I do wonder, where in the constitution does it give anyone the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of corruption', which is what lobbying is? I still think we need to indiscriminately tar and feather all of them, most of them for being scoundrels, and the rest for being idiots.

There's standing up to the administration and then there's being an obstructionist nonsensically just to be obnoxious. Reid seems to fall into the second category.

The Dems are perfectly within their rights - hell, it's even their job - to oppose the administration. But right now that opposition seems to consist only of whining and bitching and screaming insults. That's apparently Reid's style.

If they want to oppose the administration effectively they need to offer viable policy alternatives. Right now no one is saying, "hey, these democrats have some good ideas, why doesn't the administration try to work with them", because they have no ideas that anyone thinks are viable and aren't willing to venture onto grounds where compromise is possible. They just want to stand to the extreme left and shout shrilly and point fingers. No one much likes to see that sort of behavior from people who want to be their leaders.

People like Reid cost the Democrats the last election and are on their way to costing them the next one, if they don't start putting policy first and coming up with some real ideas that catch the public imagination.

Dave

Over the past decade the US could have ended up with someone else as president but the news media dubbed them "crazy" or "racist". However, we would have avoided problems with which we are now confronted, and for which nobody seems to have a solution.

1. We would not have NAFTA and we would still have the American jobs that went to Mexico.

2. Our borders would be guarded and the millions of illegals in this country would be where they should be -- in their own countries. Our immigration laws would be enforced.

3. The hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs lost to countries such as China because of dollar-an hour slave labor would still be here in this country. We would not have the long term implications of what our future will be like when ALL our manufacturing jobs are gone.

4. Our economy would be improved because there would be less unemployment and out tax base would higher.

5. We would not be bogged down in a senseless war in Iraq. Thousands of Americans in our military would be alive or at least have their limbs intact.

6. We would not be spending hundreds of billions of BORROWED dollars to fight an "enemy" that never attacked us and did not even come close to having the ability to attack us. The worst thing that Iraq ever did to us was WHAT? (I know Saddam committed the mistake of throwing Halliburton out of Iraq before the war).

7. We would not have a White House intent on rewarding its rich friends and benefactors to the detriment of the average taxpayer. Of course, we would have some unhappy multi-national corporations who would not be able to take a product that cost $1 to make overseas and sell it here for $35.

8. We would not have a White House intent on deceiving the people with puppet spokesmen who are nevertheless capable of bamboozling the news media.

9. We would not have to contend with a Pentagon which has been hijacked by a cabal of irrational neo-cons, or should I say neo-fascists.

10. Our image around the world would be one of respect as opposed to one of ridicule and disdain.

We have what we have because our politically correct news media can vilify political candidates with impunity, regardless of the veracity of their accusations.

So you're for Pat Buchannon '08 then?

I think that's a given based on RealCon's previous postings.

Dave

Pat Buchanan would not run again -- he has been smeared too many times by the left wing press.

Who the hell listens to the quote-unquote "left wing" press:

- President George W. Bush - 2 Terms
- Republican controlled Congress

Who listens to the left wing press? What else has there been to listen to?

Wall Street Journal/Washington Times/Fox/Bill O' R/Rush/Hannity/Savage... and the beat goes on.

Oh, and the "left wing" cable news nets are pretty well dominated by conservative/neo-con analysts nowadays...

Over the years that Buchanan was smeared most of the voters in this country got their news from sources other than the ones you referenced.

I take it that Eric doesn't believe Buchanan was smeared.

I can't say for sure, but I find him to be really intelligent and really wacky all at once. He's incredibly incisive when analyzing the current political scene, but the second he veers into his own ideas -- particularly with regard to social issues -- I find him to be on the outer fringes of the right.

Oddly I find him to be on the outer fringes of the left, Eric.

Dave

Eric -- How did you learn that he was "wacky"? If he's incredibly incisive when analyzing the current political scene, what makes him less incisive on other issues? And what are these other issues? I listed ten areas where he would have been far more preferable for the country than what we have gotten. What are his ideas that you object to? You are simply going along with the crowd that has been taken in by the left wing.

No, I'm not, RealCon. You're assuming I'm "going along" based upon your own notions of the press and what it does to "people."

I find his ideas about the "culture war" in this country to be somewhat obnoxious and his positions on social issues (abortion, gay marriage, censorship, 1st amendment, 2nd amendment) to be the polar opposite of what I believe.

Eric -- There is a "culture war" in this country. Why deny it? Abortion and gay marriage do nothing to serve the country. Prior to their coming upon the scene the country was better off . It is a good guess that the gay marriage issue cost Kerry the White House. What are your issues with censorship, or the 1st amendment and 2nd Amendments?

I listed ten areas where the country would be BETTER OFF if Buchanan had become president.

This is the crux of the matter -- why is it avoided?

I'm not avoiding anything. You accused me of being a sheep to the "liberal" media and I explained why I have a problem with PB. I agree with a few of the points on your list and disagree with the rest. However, PB's particular positions on social issues are what bothers me most about him.

Eric -- At least you are more forthcoming than most who blindly accept whatever negative comments are made about Buchanan. But the importance of the REAL ISSUES that Buchanan believes in has not been addressed. The discussion always tends to drift into the left wing social issues which have been promulgated by the liberal news media. Where is the discussion on the REAL ISSUES which are not supported by the left, and what is the relative importance of them? The country is not better off because of the left wing social downslide during the past several decades.

"the country is not better off...."

opinions, all.

Very true.

Mark -- I am awaiting responses to your request for opinions on whether the country is better off as a result of the left wing social downslide during the past several decades. I doubt you will get any responses from the left because the answer is obvious -- the country IS worse off.

The country is better off in every way that matters - which means the economy - than we were a few years ago. As for the 'moral' issues, they're all bullshit that scores about a 1 on the 1-10 scale of real importance to anyone - conservative or liberal - with half a brain.

Dave

The country is better off in every way that matters? That is real bullshit.

Since the emergence of a moral decline over the past few decades which was fostered by the liberals in this country, the following has taken place:

1. Drugs now permeate our society. The cost to fight these addictions is in the billions and hurts our economy in many ways. The loss in economic productivity is immeasurable.

2. Prostitutes which were once called "Whores" or "Sluts" now have a cleaned-up title and are referred to as "Call Girls". They openly advertise themselves on the internet and newspapers and they pass around AIDS like candy. Although AIDS has yet to reach its zenith, it is already siphoning away medical resources and funding from more worthy causes.

3. Abortion has resulted in our population dropping by about 40 million from what it would have been otherwise.... Oops -- there goes the mainstay of our Social Security.

4. Since sexual intercourse between nearly anyone, married or not, permeates our culture, many of children in the country are born out of wedlock, resulting in many one-parent children becoming economic wards of the state. Some of unlucky ones are left in dumpsters but that doesn't affect the economy so I guess that's OK.

5. Many children who grow up without a father are much more liable to end up in juvenile court, or worse, and become a monetary drain on the country as well as as a danger to society.

6. We have a generation that believes oral sex is normal thanks in particular to one of our
liberal presidents. Who knows where this will lead economically. If it is combined with AIDS, there goes some more billions of taxpayer dollars and a drain on our medical resources.

Even someone with half a brain should be able to see the detrimental effects of a decline in morality over the past several decades.

I'm glad RealCon is here, since his racism, homophobia and general intolerance makes those of us who are sensible conservatives look so much more sane.

>>1. Drugs now permeate our society. The cost to fight these addictions is in the billions and hurts our economy in many ways. The loss in economic productivity is immeasurable. <<

You think these drugs are a new thing? Are you not even a little bit familiar with history? With the Heroin and Cocaine use of the 1920s? With the evils of alcohol prohbition? The only answer for the problems of drugs in our society is legalization, regulation and treatment.

>>2. Prostitutes which were once called "Whores" or "Sluts" now have a cleaned-up title and are referred to as "Call Girls". They openly advertise themselves on the internet and newspapers and they pass around AIDS like candy. Although AIDS has yet to reach its zenith, it is already siphoning away medical resources and funding from more worthy causes.<<

Prostitution is illegal and actively prosecuted in every state but one. There's no indication that it's been legitimized in any way. And once again, how about history? In the 19th century prostitution was just as widespread and unregulated and venereal disease was even more widespread and untreatable than it is today. Read up on Syphillis sometime. Again, the solution here is legalization and regulation and medical treatment.

>>3. Abortion has resulted in our population dropping by about 40 million from what it would have been otherwise.... Oops -- there goes the mainstay of our Social Security. <<

And this is a bad thing? The less our popualtion grows the more jobs, the fewer social problems and the fewer unwanted children to grow up to be criminals. Sounds like a winning plan to me.

>>4. Since sexual intercourse between nearly anyone, married or not, permeates our culture, many of children in the country are born out of wedlock, resulting in many one-parent children becoming economic wards of the state. Some of unlucky ones are left in dumpsters but that doesn't affect the economy so I guess that's OK.<<

Sounds like we need more abortions to me.

>>5. Many children who grow up without a father are much more liable to end up in juvenile court, or worse, and become a monetary drain on the country as well as as a danger to society.<<

Not a problem if we abort them.

>>6. We have a generation that believes oral sex is normal thanks in particular to one of our
liberal presidents. Who knows where this will lead economically. If it is combined with AIDS, there goes some more billions of taxpayer dollars and a drain on our medical resources.<<

This is an issue for parental responsibility. Are you saying that as a parent you're incapable of explaining to your kids that what Bill Clinton did was wrong, especially for those who are under age? I haven't had any problem explaining it to my kids or monitoring their activities closely enough to keep them on the right track.

Dave

You're not really glad RealCon is here. That's why you strain credulity and resort to epithets such as " racism, homophobia and general intolerance". This name calling is typical of left-wingers who have no valid argument.

1. Illegal drugs have become an epidemic since the 1970's. We had no DEA before 1973. Before that time drug use was trivial, not a national problem as it is today. Go look it up. Use historical facts -- not wild claims that come out of nowhere.

2. Prostitution has been legitimized by the liberal media. Prostitutes have movies made about them and they are glorified regardless of the fact that what they do is illegal, Liberal judges turn them loose as soon as they are booked, The recurrence of syphilis among prostitutes is a problem today. Read up on it. Your proposed solution of legalization, regulation and medical treatment doesn't do anything for prostitutes infected with AIDS.

3. You say abortion is a not bad thing? Sounds like a winning plan to you? Hitler believed the same thing. He believed that not all lives are the same, and that one not positively valued can be destroyed. Killing undesirables sounded great to Adolf Hitler.

4. You say that we need more and more abortions? You believe that one-parent children who would otherwise become economic wards of the state should be aborted? You say it's not a problem ---- Heil Hitler!

5. You say that children who grow up without a father should be aborted? You say, "Not a problem if we abort them?" I believe you could get the Iron Cross (First Class) and possibly a promotion to Reichs Fuhrer.

6. You say that juveniles who end up in juvenile court, or worse, and become a monetary drain on the country as well as as a danger to society should also be aborted? You say, "Not a problem if we abort them. But there is a slight problem here. By the time they are juveniles it is too late to abort them. Oh yes I forgot -- this problem can be solved -- a gas chamber can be used. Without question, this will get you a Blue Max from the Fuhrer.

7. You admit that what Bill Clinton did was wrong but in your dreams you also believe it has no impact on adolescents? Give me a break.

In a recent University of Maryland study, "oral sex occurs among 12 to 15-year-old adolescents, with 18% of adolescents reported having oral sex and 75 % of these reported having vaginal sex." Few adolescents reported using barrier protection during oral sex. Most adolescents thought that penile-vaginal sex (96%) and penile-anal sex (81%) can transmit HIV, but only 68% thought that penile-mouth sex can transmit HIV.

I don't recall this being a problem when I was growing up and now it is an epidemic.

Heil Hitler!

>>You're not really glad RealCon is here. That's why you strain credulity and resort to epithets such as " racism, homophobia and general intolerance". This name calling is typical of left-wingers who have no valid argument.<<

I'd like the assembled multitude who endlessly lambast me for being an ultra-conservative to note that at this time on this day I was called a 'left-winger'. Scary, no?

>>1. Illegal drugs have become an epidemic since the 1970's. We had no DEA before 1973. Before that time drug use was trivial, not a national problem as it is today. Go look it up. Use historical facts -- not wild claims that come out of nowhere.<<

So then you agree that the creation of the DEA is the problem. If we scaled back enforcement and went with legalization we could return to the good old days before the DEA, right?

>>2. Prostitution has been legitimized by the liberal media. Prostitutes have movies made about them and they are glorified regardless of the fact that what they do is illegal,<<

Are you familiar with such novels as Madame Bovary and Camille and Moll Flanders? These are all about prostitutes and they all were written before 1900 and made into silent and then early talking films. So exactly how is the glorification of prostitutes in popular culture a new idea?

>> Liberal judges turn them loose as soon as they are booked, The recurrence of syphilis among prostitutes is a problem today. Read up on it. Your proposed solution of legalization, regulation and medical treatment doesn't do anything for prostitutes infected with AIDS. <<

Not sure if you're aware of it, but we have a CURE for Syphillis now. Yanking the prostitution license of a prostitute with HIV would pretty much solve the problem if prostitution were legal - but with it illegal there's no recourse like that.

>>3. You say abortion is a not bad thing? Sounds like a winning plan to you? Hitler believed the same thing. He believed that not all lives are the same, and that one not positively valued can be destroyed. Killing undesirables sounded great to Adolf Hitler. <<

Wow, you sound just like a liberal. Don't agree with someon - call him a new Hitler. Are you sure you don't work for moveon.org?

>>4. You say that we need more and more abortions? You believe that one-parent children who would otherwise become economic wards of the state should be aborted? You say it's not a problem ---- Heil Hitler!<<

Tell me how it's a problem - keeping in mind that I'm an atheist who doesn't give a rats ass about human life much less the life of a cluster of cells.

>>5. You say that children who grow up without a father should be aborted? You say, "Not a problem if we abort them?" I believe you could get the Iron Cross (First Class) and possibly a promotion to Reichs Fuhrer.<<

I'm pretty sure we don't have retroactive abortion technology, but I certainly don't have a problem with encouraging contraception for welfare mothers and encouraging them to have abortions.

>>6. You say that juveniles who end up in juvenile court, or worse, and become a monetary drain on the country as well as as a danger to society should also be aborted? You say, "Not a problem if we abort them. But there is a slight problem here. By the time they are juveniles it is too late to abort them. Oh yes I forgot -- this problem can be solved -- a gas chamber can be used. Without question, this will get you a Blue Max from the Fuhrer. <<

I know you're a bit slow, but my point was that if we keep the population of unwanted children down then the end result is fewer troubled juveniles.

>>7. You admit that what Bill Clinton did was wrong but in your dreams you also believe it has no impact on adolescents? Give me a break.<<

Did I say that? No. In fact what I said was that it's the responsibility of parents to talk to their kids and make sure they know it is wrong and that they don't do the same.

>>In a recent University of Maryland study, "oral sex occurs among 12 to 15-year-old adolescents, with 18% of adolescents reported having oral sex and 75 % of these reported having vaginal sex." Few adolescents reported using barrier protection during oral sex. Most adolescents thought that penile-vaginal sex (96%) and penile-anal sex (81%) can transmit HIV, but only 68% thought that penile-mouth sex can transmit HIV.<<

Perhaps if they had comprehensive sex education from an earlier age this wouldn't be a problem? Of course, most reposnsible parents would make sure kids were educated on their own, but for the rest one of the few useful things government schools can do is make sure they are informed about contraception.

>>I don't recall this being a problem when I was growing up and now it is an epidemic.<<

I don't know how it was in the 90s when you were growing up, but back in the 60s plenty of kids in their mid to early teens were having sex.

>>Heil Hitler!<<

You sure do seem to love to say that.

Dave

This name calling is typical of left-wingers

but that name calling came from a conservative Libertarian.

I don't recall this being a problem when I was growing up and now it is an epidemic.

I doubt that it's the fault of the President. It's probably related to a million things like MTV for one. Also, I imagine the reporting/fact gathering is better today. A teen is more likely today to tell you the truth. Ask a teen in the 50's a question like that and they probably would have lied to you, fearing the switch at home.

Teens were promiscuous in the past too, but because there was no HIV, maybe you just weren't made aware of the fact.

I'd like the assembled multitude who endlessly lambast me for being an ultra-conservative to note that at this time on this day I was called a 'left-winger'. Scary, no?

This is a good example of someone going on the automatic assumption that since there is disagreement, then the person is an extremist of the other ideological side. I do it, it gets done to me, it's wrong, but it's not scary anymore.

Exactly, Steve. It's the same reason that people for months on BC have identified me as a Neocon or a right winger solely because I don't like taxes and support the War in Iraq. Shows how you can look foolish for assuming a person's entire political philosophy falls into a neat little preconceived package just from one or two statements.

Dave

oh my stars and garters...

well, gentle Readers, you rhumble Narrator is almost flabbergasted by the diatribes spewed forth in the last few comments...so much so that i find myself forced into a public statement...

"RealCon" makes Mr Nalle seem...reasonable

you are aghast..i understand...think how i feel...i mean, we all know how much i enjoy some mental tussle with Mr Nalle..it iS all in good fun, tho we disagree in many respects..i have always found him to be internally consistent and at least open minded enough to listen before he launches into his patented rhetoric..

having done a bit of reading on RealCon's commentary here on BC i find it quite interesting that he is hurling out the "nazi" card so freely...there is an interesting thread on Pat Buchanon's "was world war 2 worth it" diatribe...and RealCon plays an interesting role..

so he wins today's Insidious Troglodyte award...may Bog, in his infinite Wisdom launder the greasy stain of his existence from the soiled underwear of BC...

but i digress...

for the "social conservatives" out there..let me lay the results of a recent study, done by your own folks on you..the source has been quoted with the figures a few weeks ago on Bill Mahr's HBO show..

of those high school children that signed the "abstinence pledge" in the last few years just over 50% have engaged in sex...approximately the same as the kids that did not sign such a pledge...

but wait ..there's more...
those "abstinence" kids were 6 times more likely to engage in oral sex

and 4 times more likely to engage in anal sex..

sounds to me that they, like many ethically challenged "born again" types found some loop"holes" in their contracts...

the preceeding was satirical and ironic in nature, not intended for immature audiences...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..

we now return you to your regularily scheduled programming...

Excelsior!

I can't speak for anyone else, Dave but I consider you a conservative Libertarian, even though you are Republican. I also think of you as a neoCon though, because of a strategy you have, rather than a position on an issue. No matter the topic, you defend Bush. No matter the topic, you turn it into, at the very least, 'but liberals do too!'.

I don't see you as having neo-Con ideology though, more Libertarian. But you are more likely to defend Bush at all costs and just try and oppose every liberal viewpoint put forward, even if it is ultimately an issue you don't care strongly about.

Since in comment 46, you addressed how people perceive you, I wanted to give you my honest perspective.

No question that I'm anti-leftist, Steve. You've got me there. I'm just not ready to forget about the sins of the past quite yet, when they could quickly become the oppression of the future.

But here's the thing, I'm really not a Neocon, because I don't actually subscribe to their all-encompassing expansionist foreign policy. My support for Iraq and the situation in the middle east is not a support for policy, but a support for the particular situation. Once we've sorted things out there I'm not sure we should be engaging in further large scale adventurism anywhere else - and that's what the Neocons apparently have in mind.

Dave

I know some ultra conservatives -- and Dave is no ultra conservative. But it appears he has the ability to fool some of the people most of the time.

Dave has the drug problem backward -- the creation of the DEA is not the problem. The DEA was created to SOLVE the problem because it had reached epidemic proportions.

Now Dave also wants to legalize drugs so that everyone can become a drug addict. Of course addiction means once hooked you stay hooked -- what a great country we'll have when everyone's brain is fried.

Now to justify our promiscuous society -- Dave drags out novels such as Madame Bovary and Camille and Moll Flanders to prove that the problem of having 50% of our children born out of marriage is unrelated to current social mores.

I guess Dave isn't aware of the billion dollar industry called pornography -- which now involves children even younger than ten. Dave doesn't know that sex sells and our liberal society has enabled porn actors to become millionaires because liberal perverts endorse it and there is no real outcry against this sordid business. Where did our porn industry come from -- Madame Bovary or Camille or Moll Flanders?

Dave believes that yanking the prostitution license of a prostitute with HIV would pretty much solve the problem if prostitution were legal -- just like we would have no gun crime if guns were legal. What would Dave do with an "illegal HIV prostitute" who was intent on continuing to ply her trade?

Now Dave sees he has really dug himself into a hole by saying over and over that undesirables such as children born out of wedlock, one-parent children and children who grow up without a father are undesirables and should be done away with. He says this "sounds like a winning plan". I did not say that Dave is"a new Hitler" -- I said that his "winning plan" was the same as Hitler's plan. I said it because I cannot see the difference between his plan and Hitler's plan. Can someone show me the difference?

So what is Dave's response to my reference to the similarity of his "winning plan" to that of Adolf Hitler's winning plan? He says I am a liberal -- Fantastic! -- Dave -- when you get yourself in a hole you can't get out by digging deeper. Calling me a liberal and bringing in stupid references to moveon.org will get you nowhere. Dave -- go back and look at what you wrote. You said it -- you own it. Admit you went off the deep end and said something stupid -- don't deny what you said -- Don't be a coward.

Now I find out that Dave is in favor of Bush's little war in Iraq. That shows he is really all over the lot. He says he is not a neo-con (read neo-facsist) but he supports the main agenda of this idiotic cabal. Would the real Dave please stand up and take off the mask?

RealCon:

I'd love to see your proof that liberals are the only people along that political spectrum that are into porn.

Somewhat related: There was a great piece, can't recall where I saw it unfortunately, leading up to the RNC last summer in New York about all the prostitutes gearing up for all of our leaders rolling into town...

I'm really not a Neocon, because I don't actually subscribe to their all-encompassing expansionist foreign policy.

That's what I'm saying. You're not a neo-con in ideology, you utilize the strategics/tactics of neocons.

And now, with your disagreement with RealCon here, I see the tactic is on you as well. :-)

>>Now Dave also wants to legalize drugs so that everyone can become a drug addict. Of course addiction means once hooked you stay hooked -- what a great country we'll have when everyone's brain is fried.<<

Studies actually show that there would be little or no increase in addiction if drugs were legalized, plus there would be greater access to treatment for addiction so that more people could resume a useful function in society.

>>I guess Dave isn't aware of the billion dollar industry called pornography -- which now involves children even younger than ten. Dave doesn't know that sex sells and our liberal society has enabled porn actors to become millionaires because liberal perverts endorse it and there is no real outcry against this sordid business. Where did our porn industry come from -- Madame Bovary or Camille or Moll Flanders?<<

Yep, pretty much. Porn started as literature, then erotic literature, then eventually porn. But you miss a couple of things in your prudish self-righteousness. There are already strong laws against child pornography, child molestation and even child labor. So how much MORE illegal do you think you can make child porn? So, that being proven a non-point, what do you think gives you the right to tell consenting adults what they can do on film or watch on film? Ever heard of the first amendment? Or is that one of the ones your constitution doesn't have?

>>Dave believes that yanking the prostitution license of a prostitute with HIV would pretty much solve the problem if prostitution were legal -- just like we would have no gun crime if guns were legal. What would Dave do with an "illegal HIV prostitute" who was intent on continuing to ply her trade? <<

Ever heard of criminal negligence? Reckless endangerment? We could make new laws, but we already have some which cover it.

>>Now Dave sees he has really dug himself into a hole by saying over and over that undesirables such as children born out of wedlock, one-parent children and children who grow up without a father are undesirables and should be done away with. <<

Which, of course, I never said. Not even close. What I did say was that with easily available abortion we would have fewer unwanted kids. Not at all the same thing.

>>He says this "sounds like a winning plan". I did not say that Dave is"a new Hitler" -- I said that his "winning plan" was the same as Hitler's plan. I said it because I cannot see the difference between his plan and Hitler's plan. Can someone show me the difference?<<

Yes, but this exchange was entirely in your imagination.

>>So what is Dave's response to my reference to the similarity of his "winning plan" to that of Adolf Hitler's winning plan? He says I am a liberal -- Fantastic! -- Dave -- when you get yourself in a hole you can't get out by digging deeper. Calling me a liberal and bringing in stupid references to moveon.org will get you nowhere. Dave -- go back and look at what you wrote. You said it -- you own it. Admit you went off the deep end and said something stupid -- don't deny what you said -- Don't be a coward.<<

You need to work on your reading skills. Do please point out where I said you were a liberal, because I sure can't find it.

Dave

RealCon Writes: 2. Prostitutes which were once called "Whores" or "Sluts" now have a cleaned-up title and are referred to as "Call Girls". They openly advertise themselves on the internet and newspapers and they pass around AIDS like candy. Although AIDS has yet to reach its zenith, it is already siphoning away medical resources and funding from more worthy causes.

Reply: Correction: They are called "Desperate Housewives."

[I return you now to the actual discussion]

Dietdoc... you are right - whoring has become so widespread and prevalent that it's become a household word -- thanks to the libertine takeover of our culture.

Dave now has to resort to "studies" to show "there would be little or no increase in addiction if drugs were legalized". I wonder what Dave was smoking when he dreamed this up? He doesn't realize that among other things, with legalization would come lower prices and this by itself would increase the addiction. Then he goes on to say that there would be greater access to treatment for addiction so that more people could resume a useful function in society, contradicting his earlier claim that his main concern is the economy. Where's the economic benefit to having an addict treatment clinic on every corner of our cities? And I will say again -- what a great country we'll have when everyone's brain is fried.

Then Dave goes on to make his case that porn has always been around. Of course it has been always been around but not in epidemic proportions as it is now. It's the difference between a common cold and deadly influenza. Both are caused by a virus but one is a greater problem by several orders of magnitude. There was a time in my lifetime when "God's little Acre" was talked about in hushed tones. Now anything is mainstream. And my point is -- who promoted porn to the current point where it has a hold on much of our society?. Conservatives didn't do it. If someone can't see this, they are either blind or ignorant.

Dave is right -- there are new laws against child pornography. But the issue is who is responsible for the vast increase in pornography, not whether we needed new laws after the porn epidemic took place.

Then Dave makes my point when he says-- "so how much MORE illegal do you think you can make child porn?" The point is that without the increase in porn, there would be no need to make it "more illegal". Dave wants to talk about the infeasibility of doing something to counteract what I said should not have happened in the first place. The issue now is who is responsible for having made it happen.

I did not say anything about what consenting adults can or cannot do in private. That has always gone on. The issue is the widespread extent and open promotion of this behavior now. What I have said is that the consequences of libertine behavior on a wide scale as we now have it, is detrimental to our society and economy because when children are born out of wedlock, our society as a whole suffers in many ways -- and diseases such as AIDS flourish. It's disgusting that so many innocent victims of AIDS got it from a blood transfusion.

The FIRST AMENDMENT was intended to protect POLITICAL SPEECH, not PORNOGRAPHY. Does anyone really believe that the ORIGINAL INTENT was to protect PORNOGRAPHY??? Only an idiot or an extreme liberal could argue this point.

And then Dave resorts to "reckless endangerment" and new laws to support his proposal for legalizing prostitution in an effort to take care of "illegal legal prostitution". More laws -- more government... All things we didn't need before the liberals took over...

Then Dave tries to deny what he said about undesirables such as children born out of wedlock, one-parent children and children who grow up without a father. Dave says, "the less our population grows the more jobs, the fewer social problems... not a problem if we abort them... sounds like a winning plan to me." Dave's solution to "children becoming economic wards of the state... Not a problem if we abort them... Dave's solution to "children who grow up without a father... not a problem if we abort them."

Then Dave tries to exonerate himself by saying. "what I did say was that with easily available abortion we would have fewer unwanted kids"...In other words... children born out of wedlock, one-parent children and children who grow up without a father are "undesirables". Now WHO else has advocated the elimination of "undesirables". WHO else has done this? (I don't want to put suggestions in anyone's head).

And Dave now wants readers to believe this was entirely in my imagination. No Dave -- it's what you wrote...

And finally, Dave claims that I need to work on reading skills and to point out where he said I was a liberal, because he sure can't find it. Maybe Dave needs some work to improve his reading skills.

What Dave did say to me was, "you sound just like a liberal"... and that is something that is totally ludicrous. Evidently Dave uses this device frequently enough to criticize REAL conservatives that he forgets when he says it

Dave now has to resort to "studies" to show

Why, the audacity!

Then Dave goes on to make his case that porn has always been around. Of course it has been always been around but not in epidemic proportions as it is now.

Porn has been around since man drew on cave walls. There have been images of erotic, and depictions of graphic penetration on pottery, ancient murals, all sorts of stuff. It is no more an epidemic now than at any time in man's history. We just have more media now with which to distribute the thoughts we've always had.

What is different now, is that there is an increase in those who cannot deal with said art being more vocal now than at any time in our lives. That's all.

Eric -- You want to see proof that liberals are the only people along the political spectrum that are into porn? Of course, they are not. I never made that claim. My point throughout has been that our society and culture have been subverted by liberals over the past several decades and it has been liberal (read libertine) thought, practice and effort that has brought us to the sad point where most of the population is now infected. When someone starts a fire in a building filled with people -- it is not only the person who started the fire who gets burned.

also common since the dawn of time is that notion that society is going to hell.

bring back the 'good ole days'.

right.

Ph*cking libertines. Keep 'em stoned and chained to porn screens, I say!

Mark

Steve S -- Cavemen drew "porn" on cave walls. But perhaps they were just creating their own primitive versions of "Grey's Anatomy". During the ages when peoples were crucified or sacrificed in an arena for the pleasure of the local citizenry, there was a lot going on that we do not now think is civilized. But what we have now is different than what we had between the time this country was founded and what we have had for the past several decades. We should not be captive to what cavemen or other people from antiquity did or did not do. We were founded as a country with certain ideals and these ideals lasted for almost 200 years. It has only been since the 1960's that our culture has gone into a nosedive. And don't blame the media -- that's like blaming the gun for crime.

right, don't blame the media, blame the liberals.

...because that's even simpler than blamin' the media.

Steve S -- Cavemen drew "porn" on cave walls....there was a lot going on that we do not now think is civilized.

To me, sex is as natural as eating food or breathing air. It is a part of our time here on the planet and so I don't think it's any more 'uncivilized' to have a picture of a sex act than it is to have a picture of a person eating an apple. Both are civilized depictions of humanity as I see it. I do refrain from having erotica on my pottery because of societal mores though, rather than my own thoughts that it is barbaric. Personally, I don't care about the picture on the plate; the plate having food on it, is the important thing!

We were founded as a country with certain ideals and these ideals lasted for almost 200 years. It has only been since the 1960's that our culture has gone into a nosedive.

And I would say that the difference there is that racial minorities, women, gay people, the handicapped and a whole slew of others now have a voice that they didn't really have in the first 200 years. The culture we have now is a melting pot, a diverse culture of all walks of life. To you, it is in a nosedive. Not to me.

Mark -- I believe you missed my point -- I used the term "media" in the sense of the technology, i.e., the "hardware", not in the sense of the people in the business. That's why I compared it with the "gun".

at this point, your 'point' doesn't matter to me, as it's based on the assumption that pornography (and other 'social ills') is dragging us down.

i don't agree with that assumption.

What I said about the decline in our culture has nothing to with racial minorities, women, or the handicapped.

The nosedive is in the culture, not in the rights of people where Amendments to our Constitution have been made.

The nosedive in our culture has not been achieved by any amendment to our Constitution.

Mark -- So you don't agree that pornography (and other 'social ills') is dragging us down. Read history and see what made other civilizations crumble. Start with the Romans.

yeah, I wasn't talking rights or constitution either. I was talking culture.

no, i don't.

there are a lot of problems with our society. porn doesn't make the list.

Mark -- You say -- there are a lot of problems with our society. porn doesn't make the list.

But saying it doesn't do anything about making a case for it.

neither does just saying that we're headed the way of the romans.

Pornography and its companion -- sexual promiscuity -- is one of the primary reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire? It's a fact of history --not just something I'm just saying.

and there's proof, not mere correlation, of the link between pornography and promiscuity?

don't think so (though i'm sure you can drag up some 'evidence')

Pornography has shown to be a strong factor in why serial killers committed their murders. Child molesters have been shown to be strongly attracted to porn. It has no other purpose than to sexually excite people -- which a normal person does not need. Most countries which are overpopulated don't have porn.

ok, we're done here.

studies also show that child molesters, serial killers, mass murderers and all other criminal types consume oxygen..

so, by your "reasoning" oxygen is leading to the decline of civilization??

ok..all you folks..stop breathing so we can save society!!

ok..enough of that silliness..i think you can find a much more substantial correlation to the fall of the roman empire based on lead lined aqueducts carrying the cities water supply...not to mention those nice lead plates and goblets...than you can establish a casusal link between sex and anything of the sort...

all critters have sex...

but you get my point..

Excelsior!

If lead did in the Roman Empire -- why did it take over 500 years to do it -- is it hereditary from generation to generation?

I believe there is substantial evidence and agreement that the Roman Empire was brought down by its own decadence.

Gonzo postulates that oxygen is leading to the decline of civilization. Gonzo -- you have gone bonzo.

Gonzo also does not believe there is a connection between pornography and serial killers and child molesters -- what planet has gonzo been living on?

gonzo's point is that there's a difference between correlation and causation.

it's got nothing to do with belief and everything to do with logic.

By all means -- show me your logic... When a serial killer says he was influenced by porn -- is that not accepted by you as logic?

Mark..you win today's cookie...

it's chocolate chip...hope ya like it, due to your superior thought and reading comprehension i have only one Question left..

will you have my cyber babies?

i joke...i kid...i satirize..

but amongst all that, i sometimes make a point..

and that , gentle Readers can make all the difference between a thinking person and knee jerk, dogmatic responses with no basis in Reality..

but you all knew that...that's why i hang around...

film at 11

Excelsior!

on an individual basis, anybody can be 'influenced' by anthing. it's in the more general case that...

...ah, screw it.

i've got a chocolate chip cookie to eat.

Boys -- listen to me -- Serial Killer Cary Stayner was a 40-year-old handyman who killed four girls who were vacationing at Yosemite national park. He actually tried to negotiate his confession to police by offering to give the officers a confession for a "good-sized stack" of child pornography and videos.

What more "logic" do you need? Stop playing with words you don't understand.

RealCon: When a serial killer says he was influenced by porn -- is that not accepted by you as logic?

Considering the source...

Now I want any of you boys to find me ONE serial kller or child molester who was NOT influenced by porn...

i'm comment again, but honestly, i've got a busy schedule till the end of the day.

after i take the dog to the vet for a checkup, i plan to go home page through a few old copies of Huster, after which i will undoubted seek out to rape a coupla kids in the neighborhood.

more after that, for sure.

sheesh!

I suspect that the support of porn this afternoon is somehow related to what some of you boys enjoy doing so much that it has to supported by all means possible.

And you haven't killed anybody -- so it's OK.

Mark -- Beware!

Don't get too much of a good thing!

In recent cases involving serial homicide, an obsessive addiction to pornography has been associated with the killers.

There are numerous studies relating serial homicide to an addiction to pornography, including studies at the University of Utah, the University of Houston and the Surgeon General's report on pornography.

A University of Utah study described several stages observed in the addiction process. It was noted that pornography can be proven to be psychologically addictive with the subject craving harder and harder forms in order to gratify the obsession.

1. The first stage usually involves the "soft-core" magazines such as Hustler, Playboy and Penthouse.

2. A second stage involves the addiction becoming more severe with the subject craving harder and more "bizarre" material.

3. Third, a stage of addiction to "weird" porn evolves in which the addict views pictures of children, sexual acts involving animals and violent sex.

4. A forth stage of acting out the fantasies, including the extreme forms of violent behavior, is the final result of the addiction.

In the President's Report on Pornography (1988), Attorney General Edwin Meese concluded that there is a causal relationship between hard core pornography and serial homicide. The personal testimonies of the convicted murderers Gary Bishop and Ted Bundy have also confirmed this association.

Utah State Prison inmate Gary Bishop, convicted of five known deaths of young boys, ages 5-13, gave this testimony: "I am a homosexual pedophile convicted of murder.

Pornography was a determining factor in my downfall ... For me, pornography was like lighting a fuse on a stick of dynamite. I became stimulated and had to gratify my urges or explode."

In an interview on a nationally syndicated radio program, convicted serial killer Ted Bundy told a similar story: "This is the message I want to get across - that as a young boy ... certainly I encountered in the local grocery store, in the local drug store, the porn that people call 'soft core.'"

As he grew older, Ted Bundy said his obsession drove him to mutilate and murder young women for sexual gratification. "In the beginning it fuels this kind of thought process. Then, at a certain time, it is instrumental, I would say crystalizing, making it into something that is almost like a separate entity inside, a building up of this destructive energy. You keep craving harder porn."

With all of the evidence that suggests that the homicidal thoughts of the most notorious serial killers of our day were fueled by pornography, it is baffling why porn is still widely available in our nation.

Of course, the answer is obvious -- sex sells and there is money to be made.

Why do I bother:

>>Dave now has to resort to "studies" to show "there would be little or no increase in addiction if drugs were legalized". I wonder what Dave was smoking when he dreamed this up? He doesn't realize that among other things, with legalization would come lower prices and this by itself would increase the addiction. Then he goes on to say that there would be greater access to treatment for addiction so that more people could resume a useful function in society, contradicting his earlier claim that his main concern is the economy. Where's the economic benefit to having an addict treatment clinic on every corner of our cities? And I will say again -- what a great country we'll have when everyone's brain is fried.<<

Prices couldn't be much lower for most drugs than they are now. You can buy most of the popular drugs as cheap as cigarettes and liquor. Both of which kill more people every year than all illegal drugs put together. Since you're Mr. Puritan do you want to ban Cigarettes and Liquor too?

What would happen if drugs were legalized is that there might be a brief shaking out period with some additional experimentation, which would be followed by stabilization and little change in overall addiction levels. It's not like drugs aren't easily available to anyone who wants them now. By legalizing drugs we woudl reduce associated crime and a lot of the danger and could spend all that war on drug money on treatment programs. The end result would be much better for society.

That said, I think that drugs are also an excellent mechanism for weeding out the self-destructive and weak in society. If you get ensnared by drugs and can't get out, then society as a whole is probably better off with you out of it.

>>Then Dave goes on to make his case that porn has always been around. Of course it has been always been around but not in epidemic proportions as it is now. It's the difference between a common cold and deadly influenza. Both are caused by a virus but one is a greater problem by several orders of magnitude. There was a time in my lifetime when "God's little Acre" was talked about in hushed tones. Now anything is mainstream. And my point is -- who promoted porn to the current point where it has a hold on much of our society?. Conservatives didn't do it. If someone can't see this, they are either blind or ignorant.<<

Porn is promoted by porn merchants. It's a profitable business. I'm a conservative so I'm all for business. It's become popular because access is easier now and there's a great consumer demand for it.

>>Dave is right -- there are new laws against child pornography. But the issue is who is responsible for the vast increase in pornography, not whether we needed new laws after the porn epidemic took place. <<

The laws against child porn are old, not new. And child porn and normal porn should not be considered the same thing. Porn is not some sort of conspiracy by liberals to corrupt society. That's just silliness.

>>Then Dave makes my point when he says-- "so how much MORE illegal do you think you can make child porn?" The point is that without the increase in porn, there would be no need to make it "more illegal".<<

In fact there is no need to make it more illegal. Illegal is illegal. Enforce the laws that exist and the problem will be as controlled as it can be.

>> Dave wants to talk about the infeasibility of doing something to counteract what I said should not have happened in the first place. The issue now is who is responsible for having made it happen.<<

Perhaps it's God? Don't be silly. It's not really happening, and even if it is, no one but the consumer who wants their porn is responsible.

>>I did not say anything about what consenting adults can or cannot do in private. That has always gone on. <<

So they can do anything? Like film themselves having sodomy and share it with friends?

>>The issue is the widespread extent and open promotion of this behavior now. What I have said is that the consequences of libertine behavior on a wide scale as we now have it, is detrimental to our society and economy because when children are born out of wedlock, our society as a whole suffers in many ways <<

I can't think of any that make any sense. What problems our society has cannot be connected causally to porn.

>>-- and diseases such as AIDS flourish. It's disgusting that so many innocent victims of AIDS got it from a blood transfusion. <<

Almost no one has gotten AIDS from a blood transfusion. There are a few isolated cases. That's it.

>>The FIRST AMENDMENT was intended to protect POLITICAL SPEECH, not PORNOGRAPHY. Does anyone really believe that the ORIGINAL INTENT was to protect PORNOGRAPHY??? Only an idiot or an extreme liberal could argue this point.<<

Does it say 'political speech' in the first amendment? Please show me your version that reads that way. You're just like the leftists who think that the first amendment should only apply to the speech THEY like.

>>And then Dave resorts to "reckless endangerment" and new laws to support his proposal for legalizing prostitution in an effort to take care of "illegal legal prostitution". More laws -- more government... All things we didn't need before the liberals took over...<<

Existing laws, dumbass. Not more laws. Not more government. Crimes are crimes, making prostitution legal would reduce the number of crimes, reduce the burden on the courts, and reduce health risks. You can't really be this dense, can you?

>>Then Dave tries to deny what he said about undesirables such as children born out of wedlock, one-parent children and children who grow up without a father. <<

They're still undesirables, true. But I never said to line them up and shoot them as you suggest, just that abortion can reduce the growth of that class of people in the future. Not the same thing.

>>Dave says, "the less our population grows the more jobs, the fewer social problems... not a problem if we abort them... sounds like a winning plan to me." Dave's solution to "children becoming economic wards of the state... Not a problem if we abort them... Dave's solution to "children who grow up without a father... not a problem if we abort them."<<

Yep, sounds good to me. I'm 100% pro death.

>>Then Dave tries to exonerate himself by saying. "what I did say was that with easily available abortion we would have fewer unwanted kids"...In other words... children born out of wedlock, one-parent children and children who grow up without a father are "undesirables".<<

Well duuuuh. In the sense that their parents didn't want them, of course they're undesirable.

>> Now WHO else has advocated the elimination of "undesirables". WHO else has done this? (I don't want to put suggestions in anyone's head). <<

Well, Pat Buchanan probably advocated it. But I'm not talking about killing living people, I'm talking about preventing their birth. Not the same thing.

>>And finally, Dave claims that I need to work on reading skills and to point out where he said I was a liberal, because he sure can't find it. Maybe Dave needs some work to improve his reading skills.<<

Wow, you CAN read. You just don't have the brain power to understand what you read.

>>What Dave did say to me was, "you sound just like a liberal"... and that is something that is totally ludicrous. Evidently Dave uses this device frequently enough to criticize REAL conservatives that he forgets when he says it<<

Do you understand the difference between being told you 'sound' like a liberal and 'are' a liberal. I didn't call you a liberal, I told you that you use the same techniques of intolerance and self-righteousness which characterizes liberal debate.

Dave

>>Pornography has shown to be a strong factor in why serial killers committed their murders.<<

Actually, the real studies done on this show this not to be the case.

> Child molesters have been shown to be strongly attracted to porn. It has no other purpose than to sexually excite people -- which a normal person does not need. Most countries which are overpopulated don't have porn.<<

What this doesn't take into consideration is that everyone with testosterone is attracted to porn. Some are unnatural and resist it alltogether. Others are unnatural and find they prefer perverse porn.

Dave

So does that mean if we got rid of pr0n there'd be no more serial killers?

On the other hand,(so to speak) given the teeny number of serial killer's and the gigantic number of teh pr0n users isn't there really more of an inverse relationship?

Well, you know, when there was no porn there were no serial killers, right? I mean, back in the Middle Ages Gilles de Rais didn't have access to any porn at all, so there weren't dozens of bodies of molested children buried under the staircase in his family castle, no not at all.

Give me a break.

Dave

let us not forget Chicotillo in Russia...

last i heard he still held the record for molesting/killing children

all his time in totalitarian, rural Russia...NEVER saw porn...

what was his excuse..errr...reason?

it seems the Train of Thought on this Thread got seriously derailed...

but i guess RealCon just likes porn, eh?

Excelsior!

No Joe -- just a lot less.

Dave says -- "Mr. Puritan do you want to ban Cigarettes and Liquor too?"

No, Mr. Profligate -- I like to drink and in moderation it doesn't hurt me -- and in fact it helps. As far as cigarettes go -- they are a waste of not only lives but a waste of our medical resources and they raise medical insurance rates for all of us. Until recently those of us who do not smoke were getting second-hand smoke which I would rather not get.

Dave says "If you get ensnared by drugs and can't get out, then society as a whole is probably better off with you out of it."

This is great news for the young military who start taking drugs overseas. But this would save the VA from having to treat them. That would make Dave happy. And this is one more instance of Dave getting rid of "undesirables". Now who is that famous character (can't mention his name) from WWII that Dave is now emulating???

Dave says that porn is promoted by porn merchants. It's a profitable business. He's a conservative so he's all for business. Hooray for Dave -- the mafia would love him -- whatever makes money -- go for it! The mafia recognizes and appreciates that pornography has a great consumer demand -- that's why they are into it.

Dave says in fact there is no need to make porn more illegal. "Illegal is illegal" -- now that is a pithy statement. Dave -- can you tell me what is illegal at this time? Do you know what the Supreme Court has ruled?

Dave then speculates on who is responsible for having made porn happen. He muses that perhaps it's God. Good speculation, Dave.

Dave says almost no one has gotten AIDS from a blood transfusion. There are a few isolated cases. That's it.. Since Dave know's it's only a few, perhaps he can tell us how many?

Yes Dave, the First Amendment was written by men with a certain INTENT. They had been subjected to British rule which denied them the right to publish anything that was critical of the British. Look it up. They had no INTENT to allow pornography, which was totally taboo at the time.

And there Dave goes again -- calling me a leftist. Does Dave know what a leftist is? I don't think so.

And after Dave says new laws will be needed for legalizing prostitution -- he says existing laws will do it. I believe Dave has walked through the looking glass.

When Dave tries to deny what he said about undesirables such as children born out of wedlock, one-parent children and children who grow up without a father -- he still says they're undesirables. But Dave won't line them up and shoot them. He proposes killing them by other means -- that will make it to be "not the same thing." It's obvious Dave doesn't want to shoot them -- and perhaps a gas chamber would be more efficient.

Dave says --

"Well, you know, when there was no porn back in the Middle Ages Gilles de Rais didn't have access to porn" -- so that makes his case. Not so fast, Dave.

A sample of one does not a study make.

Dave's very first comment above was -- "Nice to see you looking into Reid. I find him extremely creepy and I'm not surprised it's born out by his behavior."

In many of his subsequent posts, Dave has advocated all the social policies staunchly supported by Reid.

Just who is Dave? Does he just change colors like a chameleon?

RealCon sez..
*Now I want any of you boys to find me ONE serial kller or child molester who was NOT influenced by porn... *

and both Mr Nalle and your humble Narrator gave you an example each without trying...

we having fun yet?

i still wanna know what does RealCon's porn obsession have to do with Senator Reid?

but i am all for Pat Buchannon..i would Wish he did run again..every office, every election, every time..

not that he left the GOP to run as a Reform candidate..for which i applauded him...but is now back in the GOP

if one was cynical, one might wonder if it was a set up sabotage job...

if not..why would the miserable pigfuckers that run the GOP take back this "traitor"

Enquiring minds want to know...

Excelsior!

Gonzo -- I was addressing the social ills in this country caused by the left wing (supported by Reid) -- when someone picked out porn from one of my posts and made it the issue -- that's how it got here. I was trying to get back to the main issue of Reid and I went back to the first post way back. Unna stan?

For all those Inquiring Minds out there in Never-Never land -- I believe that those who support pornography cannot denounce it anymore than any other deviant can denounce what he does. And a supporter of pornography cannot admit his addiction anymore than an alcoholic can admit his. Both are a form of disease. Now let's get back to Harry Reid and his entourage of left wing nuts,

Gonzo -- one last thing --

You say you found ONE serial kller or child molester who was NOT a "pornicator" or otherwise influenced by porn. That raises the question of how you know this to be a fact -- one earlier post said that porn existed in prehistoric times -- did your man live before this?

Yes Gonzo -- we are having fun.

/sigh

read my Post wherein i cite the russian serialkiller/child molester Chicotillo

as i stated, i believe he still holds the record

as for how do i know of his History..let's just say i've been keeping track of "news" for quite the while...

there is also a very informative book and movie "Citizen X" that covers the entire investigation and eventual capture/execution

the transcripts of his confession are available, as well as various psychological profiles

now..as i have said on many occasions..DON'T believe me..look it up for yourself...

then i want you to try something novel, you might find it a bit scary..

Think for yourself...take off the filter and blinders

more than happy to discuss things with folks...even those i disagree with ..

for instance..i actually agree with you that Pat B. would have been a much better president than the Shrub...that does NOT mean i think he is the best for the job...but at least Pat is honest ...and while i may disagree with many of his positions, i Respect his honesty

nuff said?

Excelsior!

Man, it's like beating a puppy, but fine:

>>No, Mr. Profligate -- I like to drink and in moderation it doesn't hurt me -- and in fact it helps. As far as cigarettes go -- they are a waste of not only lives but a waste of our medical resources and they raise medical insurance rates for all of us. Until recently those of us who do not smoke were getting second-hand smoke which I would rather not get.<<

So you'd like to ban cigarettes too in your Stalinist paradise? And you're fine with alcohol which is more addictive and more dangerous than Marijuana?

>>This is great news for the young military who start taking drugs overseas. But this would save the VA from having to treat them. That would make Dave happy. And this is one more instance of Dave getting rid of "undesirables". Now who is that famous character (can't mention his name) from WWII that Dave is now emulating???<<

Patton?

>>Dave says that porn is promoted by porn merchants. It's a profitable business. He's a conservative so he's all for business. Hooray for Dave -- the mafia would love him -- whatever makes money -- go for it! The mafia recognizes and appreciates that pornography has a great consumer demand -- that's why they are into it.<<

Are you really this simpleminded or is it some sort of pose? The mafia is involved in drugs because they are illegal. Do you have no familiarity at all with prohibition and the great boost it gave to organized crime? If you legalize drugs this evil also goes away, so your argument has no meaning.

>>Dave says in fact there is no need to make porn more illegal. "Illegal is illegal" -- now that is a pithy statement. Dave -- can you tell me what is illegal at this time? Do you know what the Supreme Court has ruled? <<

Yes, actually. The supreme court has not struck down ANY law pertaining to the possession, creation or distribution of pornography involving minors. So child pornography remains illegal.

>>Dave says almost no one has gotten AIDS from a blood transfusion. There are a few isolated cases. That's it.. Since Dave know's it's only a few, perhaps he can tell us how many?<<

A bit over 14,000 world wide, almost all of them prior to 1985 - a period during which blood was not being screened for HIV - and mostly outside of the US. Since 1985 there have been very few instances in the developed world and the chance of it happening right now in the US is 1 in 1.8 million.

>>Yes Dave, the First Amendment was written by men with a certain INTENT. They had been subjected to British rule which denied them the right to publish anything that was critical of the British. Look it up. They had no INTENT to allow pornography, which was totally taboo at the time.<<

Free speech is free speech. There's no indication whatsoever that they intended to restrict any kind of free speech, even the most controversial of their time. By logical extension the same should be true today. And there WAS pornography at the time of the writing of the constitution, and not one word was said about it.

>>And there Dave goes again -- calling me a leftist. Does Dave know what a leftist is? I don't think so.<<

Again, I didn't call you a leftist, I said you use the same deceptive techniques as leftists.

>>And after Dave says new laws will be needed for legalizing prostitution -- he says existing laws will do it. I believe Dave has walked through the looking glass.<<

Ooh, did I escape from your statist totallitarian utopia?

Dave

Dave - Thank you -- Your attention is the sincerest form of flattery. But you are straining your credibility by overdoing it. Does the truth hurt that much?

Dave -- This is another chance to beat up this puppy...

Yes -- I'd like to ban cigarettes in my clean air paradise -- but if I have to breathe cigarette smoke perhaps others should be made to breathe what comes out of my car exhaust. And I love a martini occasionally -- now would you deprive me of that because I don't like your smoke? Are you really a mean mongrel?

Evidently you would like to abandon the young military who start taking drugs overseas when they need treatment, After all, they are "undesirables" in your world -- and please don't confuse "Patton" with the guy he helped to defeat -- you know -- a guy named "Adolf".

Now comes the embarrassing part for Dave.

I wrote about the mafia being involved in one thing and Dave wrote about something else. Dave -- is it an eye problem or simply a comprehension problem?

I wrote that, "porn is promoted by porn merchants. It's a profitable business. Dave says he is a conservative so he's all for business. Hooray for Dave -- the mafia would love him -- whatever makes money -- go for it! The mafia recognizes and appreciates that pornography has a great consumer demand -- that's why they are into it."

Now Dave's eyesight or lack of comprehension caused him to respond about drugs instead of what I wrote.

Dave responded -- "Are you really this simpleminded or is it some sort of pose? The mafia is involved in drugs (no Dave -- it's porn) because they are illegal. Do you have no familiarity at all with prohibition (no Dave it's porn) and the great boost it gave to organized crime? If you legalize drugs (no Dave it's porn) this evil also goes away, so your argument has no meaning."

The question is whether Dave has a vision problem or a comprehension problem. Of course it could also be that Dave gets rattled and doesn't always know what he is talking about.

But Dave catches his breath and goes on, ignoring what he didn't answer. C'mon Dave, if you're going to respond give it your best and answer the questions I raised.

Dave then prefers to answer a question on what the Supreme Court has ruled on -- pornography by talking about kiddie porn -- no mention of porn overall. He took the easy way out and skipped the rest. Dave -- we all know that child pornography is illegal. What about the rest of the court decision -- what is the test? That is the crux of the matter -- if you can't answer it -- say so, (Maybe it's really a vision problem. No -- I believe it's either a comprehension problem or just being rattled)

Then Dave changes his story that "almost no one has gotten AIDS from a blood transfusion. There are a few isolated cases." to -- "a bit over 14,000 world wide." Now that is a stretch -- if I said I would give you a few isolated dollars -- would you expect 14,000?

And Dave claims to know what was in the minds of the Founders when they wrote the First Amendment. Dave says they must have wanted to make pornography legal because "not one word was said about it." Of course from what we know about the mores of the times, pornography was about as popular as a skunk at a picnic, which means that if it was sighted it would have been shot -- and that is what would have happened to any purveyor of pornography that advertised his wares in the colonies.

Dave goes on to say "Free speech is free speech". But the phrase "Free speech" does not appear in the First Amendment. Dave -- be more precise.

And Dave persists in splitting hairs about whether I am a "leftist" or whether I behave like a "leftist". I guess Dave likes to throw around pejoratives like "leftist" to color his own ambivalence of whether he is right, center, left -- or something else. I personally think he is something else.

And then Dave attaches the pejorative "statist totallitarian utopia" to me -- whatever that is supposed to mean.

But I appreciate the attention Dave gives to me -- or rather to what I say. Thank you Dave.

>>Dave responded -- "Are you really this simpleminded or is it some sort of pose? The mafia is involved in drugs (no Dave -- it's porn) because they are illegal. Do you have no familiarity at all with prohibition (no Dave it's porn) and the great boost it gave to organized crime? If you legalize drugs (no Dave it's porn) this evil also goes away, so your argument has no meaning."<<

Is there a functional difference between drugs and porn, RealCon? I did read through your comment about the mafia too quickly - since they're far more heavily involved in drugs than porn - but on reflection, drugs and porn perform similar functions in society. One is legal, one is not. Why?

>>Dave then prefers to answer a question on what the Supreme Court has ruled on -- pornography by talking about kiddie porn -- no mention of porn overall. He took the easy way out and skipped the rest. Dave -- we all know that child pornography is illegal. What about the rest of the court decision -- what is the test? That is the crux of the matter -- if you can't answer it -- say so, (Maybe it's really a vision problem. No -- I believe it's either a comprehension problem or just being rattled)<<

Last I checked the assessment of whether something is pornographic is left to 'community standards'. If you have a point here, why not make it instead of asking me pointless questions?

>>Then Dave changes his story that "almost no one has gotten AIDS from a blood transfusion. There are a few isolated cases." to -- "a bit over 14,000 world wide." Now that is a stretch -- if I said I would give you a few isolated dollars -- would you expect 14,000?<<

Clever of you to edit out the entire rest of my response where I pointed out that almost all of the transmissions were from before 1985 when we started testing blood. Since then there have indeed been only a handful of transmissions in the civilized world. And the fact remains that your chance of getting HIV from a blood transfusion is 1.8 million to 1. Care to dispute those figures?

>>And Dave claims to know what was in the minds of the Founders when they wrote the First Amendment. Dave says they must have wanted to make pornography legal because "not one word was said about it." <<

I love you folks who want to reinterpret and expand on the constitution to make it say things it doesn't say. Another way that you behave like a leftist. The key to the Constitution is that whatever isn't specifically prohibited is allowed. That's fundamental to understanding the document.

>>Of course from what we know about the mores of the times, pornography was about as popular as a skunk at a picnic, which means that if it was sighted it would have been shot -- and that is what would have happened to any purveyor of pornography that advertised his wares in the colonies.<<

Actually, pornography was widely available even though illegal in many areas in the late 1700s. In fact, the 18th century is considered by many to be a renaissance period for pornography and erotic literature, especially in France. John Cleland's pornographic novel Fanny Hill was published in 1749 and had already been ripped off, cloned and reprinted many times by 1800. Take a look at http://wiretap.area.com/ftp.items/Library/Classic/fannyhill.txt - I imagine if you scan down a bit you'll find the graphic lesbian scene to your liking. Or perhaps your taste is more French - the Marquis de Sade had the best selling novel of the period of the writing of the Constitution. You might enjoy Justine (1791) a fine bit of 18th century porn available online at http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Justine/ - the bondage and discipline might be just to your taste.

>>And Dave persists in splitting hairs about whether I am a "leftist" or whether I behave like a "leftist". I guess Dave likes to throw around pejoratives like "leftist" to color his own ambivalence of whether he is right, center, left -- or something else. I personally think he is something else.<<

Like a stopped clock that's right twice a day, you at least got that one fact right.

Dave

I realize I'm joining this discussion very late, but....

Yes Dave, the First Amendment was written by men with a certain INTENT. They had been subjected to British rule which denied them the right to publish anything that was critical of the British. Look it up. They had no INTENT to allow pornography, which was totally taboo at the time.

Then they should have been more, shall we say, explicit. 8-)

There must have been laws against pornography at that time at the state or local level, no?

Besides, maybe the Founding Fathers liked 18th-century porn, even though it was taboo. Having children with slaves was taboo in some circles, too, and yet some of them did that.

At this point, their intent regarding pornography is irrelvant, just like their views on slavery and women's rights.

Right -- if you go with the morality of the time, then it would be cool to have children with your female slaves today. Maybe that was the porn of the era, if you think about it.

Communicating with Dave is like talking with a blind man -- black is white and white is black. It doesn't matter if something is black or white -- Dave will color it his way -- e.g., "porn is drugs" and "drugs is porn", and "almost no one' is the same as "a bit over 14,000." -- and on and on -- ad nauseam.

Dave may not always be right -- but he's never wrong