Bush wants to send pornographers to prison for 5 years

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Scootermuze
    Confirmed User
    • Dec 2001
    • 4513

    #101
    Originally posted by FunForOne
    Why didn't you copy and paste the entire article. It looks like this started with Clinton.
    .....................
    The rating system isn't a big deal...

    It's the isp privacy issues that the government now wants to invade...

    The Clinton deal had no inclusion of privacy invasion..

    Comment

    • s9ann0
      Confirmed User
      • Sep 2001
      • 4873

      #102
      if you voted for him you shouild be sent to jail for five years

      Comment

      • Well Dunn
        Confirmed User
        • Sep 2005
        • 1026

        #103
        since gator insists on pasting only part of the article on every new page figured I would repeat this.............. I dont see why he keeps hiding it.



        Originally posted by FunForOne
        Why didn't you copy and paste the entire article. It looks like this started with Clinton.

        """"
        An idea once proposed by Democrats
        The Bush administration's embrace of a rating system backed by criminal penalties is uncannily reminiscent of where the Clinton administration and a Democratic member of Congress were a decade ago.

        In the mid-1990s, the then-nascent Internet industry began backing the Platform for Internet Content Selection, or PICS. The idea was simple: let Web sites self-rate, or let a third-party service offer ratings, and permit parents to set their browsers to never show certain types of content. Netscape and Microsoft soon agreed to support it in their browsers.

        At a White House summit in July 1997 hosted by President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore, the head of the Lycos search engine proposed that only rated pages would be indexed. (Bob Davis, the president of Lycos at the time, said: "I threw a gauntlet to other search engines in today's meeting saying that collectively we should require a rating before we index pages.") Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state, suggested that misrating a Web site should be a federal crime. And Australian government officials began talking about making self-rating mandatory. """
        ICQ: 471859252

        Mailers! ICQ me I want your traffic!!!!

        We will pay daily, weekly, monthly, WHATEVER! Just contact me and we will get you paid!

        Comment

        • GatorB
          The Demon & 12clicks
          • Oct 2001
          • 18208

          #104
          Originally posted by Well Dunn
          since gator insists on pasting only part of the article on every new page figured I would repeat this.............. I dont see why he keeps hiding it.
          I've never have pasted an ENTIRE article on ANYTHING. Anyone that does is an idiot. I can't stand people that paste whole article then of course 20 people quote that person so you have to scroll forever to read a thread. REAL fucking smart. Only reason this would be an issue is you are a Bush lover that sucks Bush cock. No one else cares. Next time you paste only part of an article I'll remember to call you out. I'm 99.99% sure you have before, HYPOCRITE. I pasted the IMPORTANT parts of the article. That's what counts. You're like my mother than takes 10 fucking minutes to explain something that should take 30 seconds because she thinks every inconsequnetial detail is important.

          By the way if you've seen the rest of the article then it's not hidden is it? If it's so fucking important why not post that instead of being an ass? What is YOUR agenda?

          Congrats you've been nominated for retard of the week.

          Comment

          • minusonebit
            So Fucking Banned
            • Feb 2006
            • 7391

            #105
            Originally posted by Nicky
            Why hasnt be been assasinated yet?
            I wish I knew. Where are the little voices in the crazy people's heads that tell them to kill when you need them?

            Comment

            • edgeprod
              Permanently Gone
              • Mar 2004
              • 10019

              #106
              Originally posted by GatorB
              I pasted the IMPORTANT parts of the article. That's what counts. You're like my mother than takes 10 fucking minutes to explain something that should take 30 seconds because she thinks every inconsequnetial detail is important.
              The fact that it's a Democrat program that started under Clinton is inconsequential?

              Where's my wool? Can I sheer you?

              Comment

              • fuzebox
                making it rain
                • Oct 2003
                • 22359

                #107
                Originally posted by The Sultan Of Smut
                Sweet, did you see the hover craft today?
                Nope, I moved out of Vancouver last summer. I've seen it before though, here's a shot from last year:

                Comment

                • bdld
                  $100,000
                  • Dec 2001
                  • 11452

                  #108
                  overall its a good proposal, unfortunately they stuck some sneaky stuff in there, like politicians always seem to do.. mandatory labeling is a good idea, tv & movies have to do it, websites should too.

                  Comment

                  • Well Dunn
                    Confirmed User
                    • Sep 2005
                    • 1026

                    #109
                    Originally posted by edgeprod
                    The fact that it's a Democrat program that started under Clinton is inconsequential?

                    Where's my wool? Can I sheer you?
                    bingo, but I suck bush cock, because I actualy took the time to read and realize bush did very little to start this. Of course if you are anti-bush you are going to leave out the part of the article that leaves the credit pretty much 100% with the fucking democrats. Yet bush is trying to put pornographers in prison for 5 years, not clinton mcblowjobpants
                    ICQ: 471859252

                    Mailers! ICQ me I want your traffic!!!!

                    We will pay daily, weekly, monthly, WHATEVER! Just contact me and we will get you paid!

                    Comment

                    • cspdinc
                      Confirmed User
                      • Jan 2004
                      • 724

                      #110
                      I've been in and around adult since 1991, and I have NEVER seen such rabid foaming at teh mouth "We hate porn " as I have since moving to the midwest for a spell. You are VERY insulated in SoCal like I was, you fail to see the FORCE behind actions like this. They, the opposition is FAR better organized and have much better community platforms. (churches 200-300 people at a time 3 times a week. x 5-12 churches per community, sometimes this is the entire town including councils and police) than we will EVER have.

                      Elections are going to be TOUGH this year as it is for repub/dems so expect someone, meaning us, to be made a scapegoat/sacrifice for someones election to attain thier goal and dont think they'll feel a bit of remorse..
                      Last edited by cspdinc; 04-21-2006, 11:19 PM.

                      Comment

                      • GatorB
                        The Demon & 12clicks
                        • Oct 2001
                        • 18208

                        #111
                        Originally posted by edgeprod
                        The fact that it's a Democrat program that started under Clinton is inconsequential?
                        Well if one's point is too say "You're a dem and dems want to ban porn too so ha ha on you" I guess it means something. I'm not a dem, never have been. I have been republican before, so I think that qualifies me to speak out against one. Anti-Bush doesn't mean pro-dem. If I hate the Green Bay Packers does that make me a Chicago Bears fan? Um no.

                        Anyways it's CONGRESS that comes up with bills. REPUBLICANS were in control for the last 6 years of Clinton's term. SO how you can say the dems started this is beyond me. No bill would get any traction without REPUBLICAN approval FIRST. Since Bush is the same party as congress and all republicans suck his cock, he basically controlls congress. They basically do what he says. He hasn't vetoed a bill yet which is the 2nd longest all time a President has gone with vetoing a bill. That shows you how much controll he has. And if you are suggesting that Bush would be AGAINST this then you are insane.

                        Comment

                        • edgeprod
                          Permanently Gone
                          • Mar 2004
                          • 10019

                          #112
                          Originally posted by GatorB
                          Anti-Bush means you're generally hysterical, paranoid, wear tinfoil hats, consider everything a "vast conspiracy," and drink lots of Kool-Aid. If you're into it enough to make posts on GFY about it, then you definitely have too much time on your hands anyway, and the windows in your mother's basement probably don't let in enough air. The kind of people, like me, who post things like this are the smallest players in the industry, and spend a lot of time spouting hysterics, drawing senseless analogies, and responding to trolls who are just getting sig spots on ridiculous threads. I'll keep responding, bumping, and sending you sales, though.
                          I couldn't have said it better myself. I agree that most of the anti-Bush crowd is just hysterical and whiny. Personally, I'd like to see someone other than Bush in office right now, but I just haven't seen a viable candidate. I hate to join the "anyone but Bush" crowd, because I think that leads to dangerous and irresponsible choices -- choices like Billary, McQuack, John "Can't Find The Truth with Both Hands" Kerry, or Howard "The Fuck" Dean. You wouldn't put out a fire with an atomic bomb, would you?

                          I think you and I would have a lot of things to talk about over a beer. You seem very intelligent. If you could just focus your obvious intellect on a cohesive strategy, I am sure you'll be successful. "Fake it until you make it" becomes annoying more than productive in some circumstances, though.

                          Comment

                          Working...