Crackdown on Porn

[fifty5]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackdown on Porn

And who determines which faceless advisors and committees have access to the hot seat?

Right.

'Yes Minister' (a very British counterpart to 'West Wing') might be argued to support Raphy's position (it's all about the duelling between the Minister and the civil service), it also makes it very plain that the character of the Minister can have a huge effect on the outcome of that duel.

Not voting because none of the candidates is acceptable seems a reasonable choice, but because 'it won't actually affect anything' seems to me to be a mis-reading of things.

(Not a personal attack, Raphy, just someone else's opinion.)

f5

 

[panty_inspector]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Crackdown on Porn

I think, shereads, the point I was trying to make was that whilst the entity called the Presidency has the power of veto, the person who decides when that power is used is not the man who sits behind the desk in the Oval Office (or in 10 Downing Street).. Hell, it probably isn't even a person, it's probably those faceless advisors and commitees.

Do I sound like a raving mad conspiracy theorist? Maybe. I'm not really raving about it, and I'm not about to start some crusade to expose the 'true people with power' ..

You say that 500 votes would have made a difference. I say that they wouldn't, because I believe it matters very little who's actually in power in this country - I said the same thing about the UK when I lived there too.


That is, if you truly believe that it matters who wins the race. I don't.

sorry, i don't mean to pile on here, raphy, but...

given the changes we've seen in the US over the last 3 years, i find your position to be cynical & naive. you're certainly entitled to you're opinion, but the notion that one leader is the same as the next is a cop-out from where i'm sitting...

i'm NOT trying to start an argument, it's just my 2 bits

cheers

 

[Pornofan420]

I personally believe that if we had a president Gore, we wouldn't have conquered Iraq in the manner we did. I think if we had a President Gore and we ended up going into Iraq, it would have been under a U.N. mandate, and not as some neo-conservative colonial venture to grab the oil and set up forward military bases in the region so that we can stop relying so much on Saudi Arabia.

According to various sources, Bush 1.5 doesn't read his Presidential Daily Briefings. He seems not to read, period. He takes hsi PDBs verbally from people he trusts. Say what you want about Clinton (and I certainly can), he read his PDBs so that it would be unfiltered. He would send his aides out of the rooom so that thier reactions wouldn't be coloring his reading of the daily national security heads-up.

Yeah, I think it matters who's in the White House. I'm getting an absentee ballot this election. They're harder to falsify. That way, there's a paper trail with my votes I marked down.

I can't wait to see what the hackers come up with for this election. Should be interesting.

 

[KenJames]

I personally believe that if we had a president Gore, we wouldn't have conquered Iraq in the manner we did. I think if we had a President Gore and we ended up going into Iraq, it would have been under a U.N. mandate, and not as some neo-conservative colonial venture to grab the oil and set up forward military bases in the region so that we can stop relying so much on Saudi Arabia.

According to various sources, Bush 1.5 doesn't read his Presidential Daily Briefings. He seems not to read, period. He takes hsi PDBs verbally from people he trusts. Say what you want about Clinton (and I certainly can), he read his PDBs so that it would be unfiltered. He would send his aides out of the rooom so that thier reactions wouldn't be coloring his reading of the daily national security heads-up.

Yeah, I think it matters who's in the White House. I'm getting an absentee ballot this election. They're harder to falsify. That way, there's a paper trail with my votes I marked down.

I can't wait to see what the hackers come up with for this election. Should be interesting.

One of the biggest of the Big Lies in the modern United States political climate is that there is no real difference between the parties or the individual candidates and that everyone in politics is controlled by the same big faceless interests (I'm not saying that everyone who believes this is a liar, but I do feel they've bought into the lie).

George W. Bush is in office to deliver as many new goodies as possible to his buddies in the already unbelievably wealthy and powerful giant corporations. To gain and hold power, he's attempting to fully implement the "Christian" Rights agenda of turning the United States into a Taliban-style theocracy. In the name of national security, he and Department of Injustice head John Asscroft (thanks Colly!) are also accelerating the trend towards turning the country into a 1984-style police state.

Would have Al Gore have pursued this agenda? No. If elected, will John Kerry continue the Bush program? No. Individuals do matter.

Bill Clinton signed the blatantly discriminatory "Defense of Marriage Act" because there were enough votes to override a veto and he didn't want to give the Republicans the chance to label him as being "against marriage." A number of Democrats signed onto the bill for the same reason.

After the shock of 9/11, most Democrats supported the hastily-passed Patriot Act because the administration convinced them there were additional imminent terrorist threats. A significant number of those Democrats now want to revise the Patriot Act because Bush and Asscroft pushed it further than they'd ever expected.

Politics is often a nasty business and politicians often do things for questionable or purely political reasons. An elected official has to stay in office in order to make any difference. Even while making compromises, many manage to do a lot of good.

That's why I continue to look at the candidates and issues carefully and vote in every election. I understand why many people are disenchanted with the process, but I firmly believe the old saying, "In order for evil to triumph, all that is necessary is for enough good people to do nothing."

 

[SlickTony]

My daughter's leaving the country this fall to study. I already told her to vote absentee, as this election's too important to miss.

 

[Guest]

 

[raphy]

*grins* .. Rag on me all you like, I only wanted to stir up some discussion anyway - The thread was full of people in agreement

I don't think it makes a huge difference, no - Well, it won't make a difference to my daily life - Get up, get dressed, go to work, come home, go out for dinner, etc etc ..

As for the faceless advisors and committees - Personally, I'd think they get picked by their predecessors. The head of state may officially usher them in, but I'm sure he gets told who he's allowed to pick and who he isn't.

I think the Clinton's whole zippergate debacle showed it for me - "You are president as long as we let you be president."

 

[KenJames]

I don't think it makes a huge difference, no - Well, it won't make a difference to my daily life - Get up, get dressed, go to work, come home, go out for dinner, etc etc ..

You're right, it probably won't make a big difference to you personally, as long as you're not of draft age, gay, write porn . . .

As for the faceless advisors and committees - Personally, I'd think they get picked by their predecessors. The head of state may officially usher them in, but I'm sure he gets told who he's allowed to pick and who he isn't.

Maybe it's the Trilateral Commission. Your view about the country being run by dark sinister forces is a little paranoid for me.

I think the Clinton's whole zippergate debacle showed it for me - "You are president as long as we let you be president."

Excuse me, did I miss something? As I recall, Clinton served two full terms and Trent Lott cut the whole impeachment proceeding short when he realized it was making the Republicans lose support.

Or are you just tweaking us again?

 

[raphy]

You're right, it probably won't make a big difference to you personally, as long as you're not of draft age, gay, write porn . . .

You think we wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq if GW wasn't in the hotseat? I think we would have, but there's no way to prove either of our viewpoints. Unfortunately, life isn't a TV set and you can't shoot the scene again with a different script.

Maybe it's the Trilateral Commission. Your view about the country being run by dark sinister forces is a little paranoid for me.

Whoa, hold up. I never said they were dark and sinister. I just said that we, the voters, had no control over them and that we don't really know who they are.. I don't actually care about them, and this is why:

This is the way I see it. I get up in the morning. I have breakfast. I go to work. I come home. I have dinner with my wife. I watch a little TV, maybe play with the dog for a bit and then I go to bed. I don't see it much matters who's in the charge of the country. It doesn't have a huge impact on me and my daily routine.

This actually ties into my post on the mortality thread. I live life for the now. For what I can see, hear, feel, touch, taste and smell right now. I don't have a retirement plan. I don't save money for a rainy day. For all I know, I'm not going to live long enough to spend it anyway, so why not enjoy it while I have it. If what you're doing doesn't affect what I'm doing right now, then I couldn't care less.

Excuse me, did I miss something? As I recall, Clinton served two full terms and Trent Lott cut the whole impeachment proceeding short when he realized it was making the Republicans lose support.

Or are you just tweaking us again?

Well, maybe just a little

But I'm semi-serious about it too .. The fact that Clinton served two full terms is irrelevant. When he'd served his purpose, it was time for him to be gone.

"Okay boys, let's get rid of Clinton. What do we have on him?"

And he may have cut the whole impeachment process, but by then the objective had been achieved, re: Clinton was out of office.

"Okay, we've got him fired, now let's look like nice people and pretend we care."

*chuckles* .. I know it's anathema for people living in a democratic country to come to the terms that they have very little say or control over things, but *I* sure believe it.

Difference between you and me is that I don't care how much control I have over the running of the country that I'm living in, because by and large, it doesn't affect what I do on a daily basis.

That said, I may just be a secret member of one of those faceless committes that I was talking about and I'm playing a double-bluff smokescreen....

 

[cloudy]

I personally believe that if we had a president Gore, we wouldn't have conquered Iraq in the manner we did. I think if we had a President Gore and we ended up going into Iraq, it would have been under a U.N. mandate, and not as some neo-conservative colonial venture to grab the oil and set up forward military bases in the region so that we can stop relying so much on Saudi Arabia.

Gore???? Obviously you've never lived in Tennessee.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you on Bush. I'm more of the "Raphy" philosophy personally, but, c'mon.....Gore?

People from Tennessee consider him a joke - doesn't that tell you something?

You want Gore? Fine - I don't suppose you realize that his wife, Tipper (sounds sorta like "Biff" and "Muffy" doesn't it?) was heading up the campaign in Tennessee while he was in office there, to censor cd lyrics and choose which books were "proper" for people to read?

 

[panty_inspector]

Whoa, hold up. I never said they were dark and sinister. I just said that we, the voters, had no control over them and that we don't really know who they are.. I don't actually care about them, and this is why:

This is the way I see it. I get up in the morning. I have breakfast. I go to work. I come home. I have dinner with my wife. I watch a little TV, maybe play with the dog for a bit and then I go to bed. I don't see it much matters who's in the charge of the country. It doesn't have a huge impact on me and my daily routine.

raphy, again....i don't intend to be a putz, but.... does something have to affect you directly for you to give a shit?

so, you can still buy beer, smokes, porn (or whatever) and not be concerned that many people around the world live in terror, poverty, etc? i'm not gay, but i sure as hell care about gay rights. i'm not a woman, but i sure as fuck care about reproductive rights.

i dunno, maybe i'm being a self-righteous j/o, but ignoring things just because they don't affect you directly just raises my hackles..

again, just me & my big mouth



carry on......

 

[panty_inspector]

oh......and i promise to attempt to quote properly next time


doh!

 

[Pornofan420]

Indeed Cloudy, I have never lived in Tennessee. Gore wasn't/isn't perfect. Maybe not even stunningly good.

But he was the viable alternative to Emperor George II of Bush, and that's what we have now.

It's a bit long, but people might find The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush Became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State by Katherine Yurica a thought provoking read.

I don't think we'd have quite as many Christian Taliban types with so much influence at the highest levels of government under Gore.

Tipper didn't like rock & roll. She sucks. Bush want's end any kind of assistance to the poor because that makes them turn to government instead of God and if they led righteous, Jesus fearing lives they'd be prosperous and wealthy. I'd rather deal with Tipper.

 

[cloudy]

Tipper scares me, because like Hillary and so many before her, she rules the roost, not good ol' Albert, and that's what makes her attempts at censorship scary.

Can you imagine it on a nationwide scale?

I don't think either one of them was a wonderful choice, however, I'd have to go with Bush over Gore. Honestly, if he was so much better, why didn't Gore carry Tennessee? It's gotta tell you something when his home state doesn't want him in the oval office.

 

[Pornofan420]

snip>I don't think either one of them was a wonderful choice, however, I'd have to go with Bush over Gore. <snip>

When John Dean, White House Counsel (I believe) to Nixon says that the Dubya crew make Nixon's dirty tricks team look like amateurs, I'm willing to write off Tennessee as having issues of it's own. But then again, I'm one of the people who believe Florida was stolen.

Everyone's got to make a choice. I just happen to disagree with yours, but reasonable people can disagree on politics.

 

[fifty5]

This is the way I see it. I get up in the morning. I have breakfast. I go to work. I come home. I have dinner with my wife. I watch a little TV, maybe play with the dog for a bit and then I go to bed. I don't see it much matters who's in the charge of the country. It doesn't have a huge impact on me and my daily routine.

Hi raphy,

US politics is a bit of a mystery to me, but different parties do do different things, despite the nameless officials in the background.

So let's look at your day again,

"I get up in the morning." - The cost and availablity of the place you live is affected by different tax regimes, so your day has already been affected by government, even if only by a lack of intervention.

"I have breakfast." US foreign trade policy affects the price and availability of food in your shops.

"I go to work." The Iraq thing has got US companies huge contracts for reconstruction. That knocks on to the suppliers used by those companies - and so on up the business supply chain. Irrespective of what you work at, there's likely to be a bit more work for you to do (so your job is a bit safer) due to that government action. (And if you want to challenge the particular example I've chosen - that the guy-in-the-chair didn't affect whether Iraq was invaded, or how it's being reconstructed, that don't matter, there's plenty more - the tax regime affects everything!)

"I come home." Government transport policy...

"I have dinner with my wife." As a man-and-wife couple, you fit the norm - and operate under marriage law. If you were a same sex couple, then government (in)action would have different effects. And, of course, like breakfast, the price and availability of the food you eat for dinner is also affected.

"I watch a little TV," What's the topic of this thread?...

"maybe play with the dog for a bit" In the UK, there's legislation about dog breeds, if the US doesn't, then that widens the choice you have about your pet (if it does, your choice was narrowed).

"and then I go to bed." Sales taxes don't affect what bed you decided you could afford?

And remember that a lack of government interference is a difference from the presence of it, so you are affected by 'no interference' as opposed to 'interference'.

And I really can't take seriously the assertion that no elected politician in the US s ever able to affect the behaviour of the nameless ones. I'd accept that many are sufficiently incompetent to win that battle, but that no politician has enough 'lust for power' to win ever?

Finally, not voting also has an effect.

Just my opinion, of course...

f5

 

[raphy]

Mate, the difference between US and UK politics has zero bearing on my opinion .. Yes, I live in Vermont now, but nationality-wise I'm British. Lived there for 29 years.

And I think you were missing my point. The point is, I will *still* be doing those things regardless of what government is in power, so unless you can find me a political party that says I don't have to go to work, or don't have to pay taxes, or can't have dinner with my wife, I still don't care

That's why I like the 'free world', or so it's known. I like being able to do those things. I just don't care which particular head of state sits in the throne of power.

p.s. Oh yes, and I don't think I've ever complained about a president or a prime minister. What they do doesn't affect the basic fundamental essentials of my life.

 

[raphy]

Oh, thought I'd reply directly, as well

"I get up in the morning." - The cost and availablity of the place you live is affected by different tax regimes, so your day has already been affected by government, even if only by a lack of intervention.

But I can still find a place to live.

"I have breakfast." US foreign trade policy affects the price and availability of food in your shops.

But I can still have breakfast.

"I go to work." The Iraq thing has got US companies huge contracts for reconstruction. That knocks on to the suppliers used by those companies - and so on up the business supply chain. Irrespective of what you work at, there's likely to be a bit more work for you to do (so your job is a bit safer) due to that government action. (And if you want to challenge the particular example I've chosen - that the guy-in-the-chair didn't affect whether Iraq was invaded, or how it's being reconstructed, that don't matter, there's plenty more - the tax regime affects everything!)

Unless the we enter utopia, I think there'll always be work. As the song says: 'As long as I've still got two strong hands I'll be working.'

"I come home." Government transport policy...

I don't think the government is actually going to ban me coming home from work. Do you?

"I have dinner with my wife." As a man-and-wife couple, you fit the norm - and operate under marriage law. If you were a same sex couple, then government (in)action would have different effects. And, of course, like breakfast, the price and availability of the food you eat for dinner is also affected.

I don't believe eating dinner is against the law yet, either....

"I watch a little TV," What's the topic of this thread?...

..... Nor is watching TV. I don't much care what's on it - it's mindless entertainment anyway.

"maybe play with the dog for a bit" In the UK, there's legislation about dog breeds, if the US doesn't, then that widens the choice you have about your pet (if it does, your choice was narrowed).

Still doesn't stop me from owning a dog.

"and then I go to bed." Sales taxes don't affect what bed you decided you could afford?

I don't much care. It's a bed. You sleep in it. *shrug*

I've never figured out why some people always have to have a cause to fight.

 

[KenJames]

The fact that Clinton served two full terms is irrelevant. When he'd served his purpose, it was time for him to be gone.

"Okay boys, let's get rid of Clinton. What do we have on him?"

And he may have cut the whole impeachment process, but by then the objective had been achieved, re: Clinton was out of office.

Maybe as a transplanted Brit, you've missed a detail of U.S. law. Presidents get two terms. Period. Clinton served the two allowed by law.

Happily, if worse comes to worse, George II also gets a maximum of two, although I suspect the Republicans will try to change that.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

[BAs for the faceless advisors and committees - Personally, I'd think they get picked by their predecessors. The head of state may officially usher them in, but I'm sure he gets told who he's allowed to pick and who he isn't.
[/B]

You're joking. You really think an outgoing Democrat gets to pick his Republican successor and vice versa? That's just insane. That just doesn't happen. The President picks his cabinet who are approved by congress, and they appoint the people below them. Yes, they're very often political hacks, but the agenda is set at the top.

I'd like to know just who it is who tells the Pres who to pick. Bill Gates? Karl Rove? The head of the RNC? I mean, the buck must stop somewhere. How do these shadowy figures exercise their control over the POTUS? With booze and broads? Cash slipped under the desk at the Oval Office?

I think you should start a new party, Raph. The Apathist party. The credo can be "I've got mine" and the motto can be, "What, me worry?" I'm just really shocked that anyone still carries around this 1970's worldview, after what we've been through.

---dr.M.

 

[cloudy]

I think you should start a new party, Raph. The Apathist party. The credo can be "I've got mine" and the motto can be, "What, me worry?" I'm just really shocked that anyone still carries around this 1970's worldview, after what we've been through.

I have to come to Raphy's defense on this. He's certainly not the only one who feels that way. I've heard the same things from friends, relatives, even my husband.

After all, most people feel that their vote makes absolutely no difference in the end, hence the huge campaigns underway every 4 years to get people to just vote. If there wasn't a general state of apathy, those campaigns wouldn't be needed.

I've got to say, I don't really blame him. People get so up in arms over the presendential thing - I've had people here on this forum call me names just for daring to disagree with them - and I guarantee you those same people will be up in arms again, against whoever is elected president, the next time elections roll around. You can't please everybody, and the more vocal shout down the ones that disagree with them respectfully. After awhile, you start to figure "what the hell" and just don't worry about it anymore.

I'm not saying its right, or that its wrong, just offering an explanation for why some people feel that way.

I've always respected your opinions, Dr. M, but just look at the way you answered Raphy. It wouldn't be conducive to keeping a discussion going with me, but then maybe he's a little thicker skinned than I am. Just because he thinks differently than you doesn't mean he's "joking."

Just my two cents - and you can start bashing me now, I guess.

 

[SlickTony]

Happily, if worse comes to worse, George II also gets a maximum of two, although I suspect the Republicans will try to change that.

Indeed, it would not surprise me if they did. The two-term limit was born of their desire to get rid of FDR, never mind that he died in his last term, and they have probably been kicking themselves ever since, once they realized that it also applied to them.

Whilst waiting for my operating system to reinstall, I found an oldish Rolling Stone that I hadn't finished reading in one of the cubbyholes of my computer table. In it I read an article by Paul Krugman, "How Bush Gets Away With It," that is really, really, really scary. It cites, among other things, Henry Kissinger's doctoral dissertation, A World Restored, on the rise of Robespierre's revolution in France and the Napoleonic era, and suggested parallels between that time and what is going on now.

Revolutions are much worse up close than they are when you read about them in history books. In every revolution, people have attempted to sit it (the revolution) out with the then-equivalent of getting up in the morning, having breakfast, going to work, coming home, having dinner with the wife, watching a little TV, maybe playing with the dog for a bit and then going to bed. And yet still monstrous shit started happening to them--extraordinary circumstances that maybe started with them losing jobs and homes, through no fault of their own, and then being busted for nothing, and losing their heads because they knew the wrong people.

 

[Raging Whoremoans]

In every revolution, people have attempted to sit it (the revolution) out with the then-equivalent of getting up in the morning, having breakfast, going to work, coming home, having dinner with the wife, watching a little TV, maybe playing with the dog for a bit and then going to bed. And yet still monstrous shit started happening to them--extraordinary circumstances that maybe started with them losing jobs and homes, through no fault of their own, and then being busted for nothing, and losing their heads because they knew the wrong people.

Slick, you make such wonderful sense sometimes.

~ R W

 

[Guest]

I think you should start a new party, Raph. The Apathist party. The credo can be "I've got mine" and the motto can be, "What, me worry?" I'm just really shocked that anyone still carries around this 1970's worldview, after what we've been through.

As we used to say amidst the distinctive smelling smoke, "Right on", Mab. Not entering the discussion (i.e., argument), just want to say, "What he said."

peace, love, blablabla,

Perdita (in lieu of a daisy)

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Hmm? just a simple thought....Maybe Janet flashed her tit to take the heat off of her Brother Jacko? Tit for Tat.