Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid loves to shoot from the lip... Or is someone else pulling the trigger?
What do recently crowned DNC leaders Howard Dean (DNC Chair) and Harry Reid (Senate Minority Leader) have in common? Apparently, they both love to "shoot from the lip." Howard Dean was the first to earn this stylistic distinction during the Democratic Primaries way back in 2003. Senator Reid, on the other hand, began his reign of terror in December of 2004, just before ascending to the Senate Minority Leader post.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - Mark Saleski
ok, we're done here.
77 - gonzo marx
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!
78 - RealCon
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.
79 - RealCOn
Gonzo postulates that oxygen is leading to the decline of civilization. Gonzo -- you have gone bonzo.
80 - RealCon
Gonzo also does not believe there is a connection between pornography and serial killers and child molesters -- what planet has gonzo been living on?
81 - Mark Saleski
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.
82 - RealCon
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?
83 - gonzo marx
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!
84 - Mark Saleski
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.
85 - RealCon
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.
86 - JR
RealCon: When a serial killer says he was influenced by porn -- is that not accepted by you as logic?
Considering the source...
87 - RealCon
Now I want any of you boys to find me ONE serial kller or child molester who was NOT influenced by porn...
88 - Mark Saleski
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!
89 - RealCon
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.
90 - RealCon
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.
91 - Dave Nalle
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
92 - Dave Nalle
>>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
93 - Joe
So does that mean if we got rid of pr0n there'd be no more serial killers?
94 - Joe
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?
95 - Dave Nalle
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
96 - gonzo marx
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!
97 - RealCOn
No Joe -- just a lot less.
98 - RealCon
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.
99 - RealCon
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.
100 - Realcon
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?
101 - gonzo marx
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!
102 - RealCon
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?
103 - RealCon
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,
104 - RealCon
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?
105 - RealCon
Yes Gonzo -- we are having fun.
106 - gonzo marx
/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!
107 - Dave Nalle
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
108 - RealCon
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?
109 - RealCon
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.
110 - Dave Nalle
>>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
111 - bhw
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.
112 - Eric Berlin
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.
113 - RealCon
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
114 - Dave Nalle
Good to see you've conceded the argument and gone with the insults instead. I'll give you credit for trying to support your irrational emotionally driven beliefs for as long as you did, RealCon.
Dave
115 - gonzo marx
hey..i claim the popcorn concession for the "Fights of the Century" between Mr Nalle and "RealCon"
eat your heart out Don King!
Excelsior!
116 - Temple Stark
A-type vs A-hole.
The flog (ging two dead horses) on the blog.
Why encourage stupidity Gonz - are you that bored?
117 - gonzo marx
but Temple..it's a win-win!
and with the fortune i make form the popcorn concession i can finance the Jimi Hendrix for President campaign!!
hell...a dead guy can't do worse than the current Regime, eh?
Excelsior!
118 - gonzo marx
i guess this quote form Senator Reid is what has the neo-con panties all in a twist..it's from today's article on ABC news..
"The Senate is not a rubber stamp for the executive branch," Reid said. "Rather, we're the one institution where the minority has a voice and the ability to check the power of the majority. Today, in the face of President Bush's power grab, that's more important than ever."
sounds radical, eh?
Excelsior!
119 - Dave Nalle
I heard an interesting and appropriate stat today. In his 4 years in office, Jimmy Carter got 96% of his nominees approved. In more than 4 years Bush has gotten only 67% approved. That suggests that something is going on here.
Dave
120 - Mark Saleski
the numbers i've seen have been over 90 percent (205 approved, 10 rejected)
121 - Eric Berlin
Where'd you get that stat? Everything I've heard points to the fact that less than 5% of Bush's nominees have not been confirmed, giving him a higher rate than the previous three administrations.
122 - gonzo marx
215 nominees set up there...205 approved
how that hits Mr Nalle's percentage must be due to "new math"
Excelsior!
123 - Dave Nalle
Hey, I didn't say I'd researched the stat, just that I'd heard it. In fact, I heard it on the radio driving into town this morning. Seemed intriguing, though.
So, seeing the numbers in question I did some research and found something VERY interesting out.
The figure is accurate, but needs to be in context, which it wasn't on the radio this morning.
The numbers actually apply only to appellate court judges. Carter had 96% of his apellate court judges confirmed, Bush only 67%. And in fact, all 10 of the judges currently being blocked are being appointed to the appellate court.
All of a sudden many things become much clearer to me. I had wondered why the obstructionists in the Senate seemed to be blocking judges who overall seemed no worse than ones they let through already. I couldn't find the relationship until now. And the relationship is that the democrats are specifically targetting appellate court judges for blockage rather than judges on any of the other courts.
The reason for this is that the appeals court system is currently dominated by judges appointed by democrats and as few as three new judges could tilt the balance of power in the Appeals Courts over to the republicans. In particular, the 6th circuit court is a key appointment, because there is a pending decision there on affirmative action which has been decided in support of affirmative action by a one vote margin, which would change if a conservative judge got in there and decided to review the case, setting a precedent to strike down affirmative action nationwide.
So that's what's being fought for here and why these particular 10 judges have been targeted despite being more qualified and basically less controversial than others who have been approved by the Senate.
Dave
124 - gonzo marx
"use my Inspiration for a guillotine"
Soundgarden
not so fast there Mr Nalle..i saw you palm that ace..
note, gentle Readers..he had to go back over 30 years to get the Carter statistic..a president that served only 4 years...between then and now there was 12 years of Reagan/Bush 1, then 8 of Clinton ( remember he had over 60 nominations blocked that never even made it out of committe...so much for "up or down vote, eh?)...then 5 years of the Shrub...
now..Clinton..60 blocked...Shrub, 10 blocked..and rember also..ALL 10 were shot down in committe previously and were renominated...that one has never happened before to the best of my knowledge..
"many things become clearer to me"...yeah me to..
another shining example of how some folks can cherry pick the facts they want to reverse engineer support for their positions..
i don't blame Mr Nalle...after all he learned it by example, from Newt, Limbaugh and Rove...
"sharpening my Wit on dead men's skulls"
Soundgarden
and i can't really blame someone who drank the kool-aid...
nuff said?
Excelsior!
125 - RealCon
Dave -- you are good at jumping to conclusions.
You live in a fantasy world -- you think I’ve conceded the argument and accepted your faulty, irrational, liberal (that’s redundant), contradictory and emotionally driven beliefs -- which are compounded by insults for which I do not take offense because you do it routinely when you are losing an argument (which is frequent). This delayed broadcast is because I have been busy with other matters. I don’t live solely for this purpose -- I have a life other than trying to straighten you out.
I am not going to repeat all your contradictions, inaccuracies, false arguments and ignorance of facts, but the record is there -- it cannot be ignored. Although you don’t agree with my politics -- you have to admit that I am consistent -- a characteristic you sorely lack.
Let’s look at some major issues and see how you fare. You say you are a conservative? Being a conservative addresses more than just fiscal policy. You appear to be a libertine on social policy, a hot air artist on domestic policy (gun control), and a lunatic on foreign policy.
Let’s consider our quagmire in Iraq and see what it tells us about Dave.
Dave wants to be seen as rational -- but it’s inconsistent with his support of the neo-con (neo-fascist) Bush invasion of Iraq -- which has to be based on emotion -- what other reason could there be? So on a major issue we face today -- Dave stands with the irrational.
I notice that Dave attacked me (not what I said -- but me) in my very first post at which time I supported Pat Buchanan. That was live meat for Dave -- suddenly I was a holocaust desire (sic), a neo-nazi, and irrational as well as being nuts. Dave gleefully unleashed some of his favorite vituperation. Why -- Because I support Buchanan? At least Buchanan is smart enough to have told us to stay out of Iraq. I know most lib-ee-rals hate Buchanan because he is a conservative Republican. But why does Davie boy hate him so? WHY?
This is what my first post and support of Buchanan got me from Davie boy:
Comment 14 posted by Dave Nalle on May 12, 2005 09:44 PM:
RealCon is clearly a holocaust desire and presumably a neo-nazi as well. You can tell he's nuts from the first paragraph. When you post on blogcritics it attracts the attention of both the rational and the irrational who are out there, and you just have to take their comments for what they're worth. RealCon's are clearly worth about as much as Pat Buchanan's.
Dave had so very much to say and so little time to say it that in his rush to unleash his invective, he misspelled a very simple word -- which I presume was meant to be denier. But how does denier become desire? Was Dave looking at some porn and got confused?
Trying to communicate with Dave is like talking to a deaf, dumb and blind man -- black is white and white is black. Porn is drugs and drugs is porn, denier is desire and desire is denier, little amount is large amount, large amount is small amount, legal is illegal and illegal is legal, conservative is liberal and liberal is conservative, and on and on…
Dave has raised many questions which for Dave remain confusing -- such as how drugs are good for kids, the societal benefits of porn, and lesser issues such as how I established the “statist totallitarian utopia”, that Dave thinks he may have escaped from.
But to Dave -- reality doesn't matter -- Dave will color anything his way. And if Dave cannot color the facts or if someone disagrees with his position or his emotional stance -- Quick Draw Dave whips out his ultimate weapon --his liberal vilification of the person who dares to try to straighten him out. His quick-draw vilification raises a question - was Dave a communist in a prior life?
One thing is perfectly clear -- Dave may not always be right -- but he’s never wrong