'End the Era of Ashcr0ft'

[CamChicks]

It's not really news, but I went to John Kerrys website
and it made me giggle that he has a section dedicated to
'End the Era of Ashcr0ft'

I'm starting to like this guy.
No doubt adult webmasters would be safer with him.

(searched, and found these related quotes)

"I think George Bush and his administration has stepped over the line of separation of church and state," Kerry said at Hopkinton High School. "All through our history we have drawn that line," Kerry said. "And I will continue to draw that line."

On the subject of religion, he believes that presidents should "recognize the diversity of faiths and even of agnosticism and atheism," and he takes the politically risky stance of admitting to a "questioning, agnostic stage" after his experience in Vietnam.


I will vigorously protect the separation of church and state. Diversity, freedom of choice and freedom of religion are among the defining characteristics of our nation. I believe we can be people of faith while respecting the principles that are enshrined in our Constitution. Faith-based organizations make great contributions to social-service programs. However, I am wary of any direct funding of religious organizations by the federal government without constitutional safeguards and protections, such as ensuring that government funding is not used for proselytizing.


"I think that it's important to not have the church instructing politicians.
That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in America.".

[GonePhishing]

Nice post!

[JunkyardDog]

Those are the statements I like to hear.

Lets hope this is the end of the Bush era

[12clicks]

Originally posted by CamChicks
It's not really news, but I went to John Kerrys website
and it made me giggle that he has a section dedicated to
'End the Era of Ashcr0ft'

I'm starting to like this guy.
No doubt adult webmasters would be safer with him.

[/i]

yes, these last 3 years have really been tough on us.

get a clue

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by 12clicks


yes, these last 3 years have really been tough on us.

get a clue

go ask Rob Black for a clue.

just because you haven't been put on trial doesn't mean others haven't been subject to harassment, costly legal battles, fines and/or jailtime . . all for distributing images of consenting adults to other consenting adults.

the USA needs an Attorney General who respects the constitution
and will not waste taxpayer resources on a personal religious crusade.

[gornyhuy]

Originally posted by 12clicks


yes, these last 3 years have really been tough on us.

get a clue

Have you been living in a fucking cave?

[BRISK]

Nice to hear

[nathan_f]

"However, I am wary of any direct funding of religious organizations by the federal government without constitutional safeguards and protections, such as ensuring that government funding is not used for proselytizing."


I'm begining to like this guy...

No more bible thumpers in the white house please.

Thanks.

[gornyhuy]

I love it... now how can we actually get him elected when Bush has over 100 million stashed away ?

[Ludedude]

Originally posted by gornyhuy
I love it... now how can we actually get him elected when Bush has over 100 million stashed away ?

Yeah, that's a tough nut to crack indeed but I'm going to send this guy some money. It's about time someone said what needed to be said. I hope this guy can send the right wing whackos back where they came from.

[scoreman]

The problem I guess is that Kerry will not win. I am not a Republican either, just a realist.

[Ludedude]

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

If I sat around here with that kind of attitude I'd never get anything done at all.

[TheJimmy]

Originally posted by BRISK
Nice to hear

Agreed...




in my opinion they've pissed on the graves and memory of every dead and injured veteran that sacrificed for the freedoms we USED to have...

[bhutocracy]

thats a pretty bold statement from a presidential candidate. excellent to hear.

[stevecore]

http://veepers.hanes.com/service/Ret...1-93801D9ED7CE

[12clicks]

Originally posted by CamChicks


go ask Rob Black for a clue.

just because you haven't been put on trial doesn't mean others haven't been subject to harassment, costly legal battles, fines and/or jailtime . . all for distributing images of consenting adults to other consenting adults.

honey, rape has always been taboo. push the envelope, find trouble. It's the clue you kids always seem to miss.

[pimplink]

Pls don't speak too soon election's next year

[phelix]

Originally posted by pimplink
Pls don't speak too soon election's next year

Election is this year and I don't believe Kerry will win either. Dems have the right candidate in Edwards but are focusing on the resume of Kerry. They forget that the last two Prez were elected for their personality not their credentials and neither of them had impressive resumes especially Bush who is likely the least qualified individual ever elected to the WH.

JMHO

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by 12clicks

honey, rape has always been taboo. push the envelope, find trouble. It's the clue you kids always seem to miss.

Fictional rape is common and accepted in R-rated movies.
Fictional rape should be treated no differently in X-rated.
It's the same thing from a different angle.

Any fiction involving consenting adult actors must be allowed.
If you don't defend that standard, eventually, you're fucked.

Otherwise, you have these silly self-rightous assholes attempting
to inflict their own personal taste on the rest of the population.

And once they're done putting all producers/actors of fictional
rape scenes in jail, they'll just pick a new niche. Pee. Fisting.
Gay. Interracial. Gangbang. Bukkake. Bondage. Their agenda is
to take it all away, one "obscenity" at a time, until the legal
definition of obscenity is again penetration or simple nudity.

CULLMAN, Ala. - US District Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan apparently wasn?t kidding when she said that it might be possible that even Playboy, a tame magazine by today?s standards, could still be deemed obscene in the United States. A bookstore in Alabama is currently being accused of selling obscene materials ? Playboy and Playgirl.

People Vs Larry Flint was only 30 years ago.


Hustler is the quintessential example of what ought to be protected by the First Amendment. Tolerance is often nothing but indifference. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the speech is bland, polite, and civilized. Tolerance is only meaningful when the speech is jarring to mainstream sensibilities.... Like the pilots in Tom Wolfe's The Right Stuff, who strain their planes to the breaking point to "test the envelope," Larry Flynt and Hustler constantly push us to the outer limits of our tolerance. If we are really to be a pluralistic and open culture ... we must be willing to embrace all speech, even speech at the extremes, for it is only by such toleration that we give meaning to the ideal of an open society.

[$5 submissions]

Fiction is the cornerstone of ALL entertainment.

[Skincitymodels]

After Clinton I didnt think I would ever vote Democrat again.......but Bush is Rapidly changing my mind by his bringing in Ashhahahahaha and running the deficit to an all time record...... the only thing he has going for him is his willing to stomp assholes like Saddam and Osama..... But thats not what is going to keep our country strong.... plus Kerry is Pro Medical Marijuana......that in itself says that he has an open mind...... unlike the Bush/Ashhahahahaha combination

[fuelcell]

Originally posted by Skincitymodels
After Clinton I didnt think I would ever vote Democrat again.......but Bush is Rapidly changing my mind by his bringing in Ashhahahahaha and running the deficit to an all time record...... the only thing he has going for him is his willing to stomp assholes like Saddam and Osama..... But thats not what is going to keep our country strong.... plus Kerry is Pro Medical Marijuana......that in itself says that he has an open mind...... unlike the Bush/Ashhahahahaha combination

Uh, what he said. Ditto. Yeah.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by Skincitymodels
After Clinton I didnt think I would ever vote Democrat again.......but Bush is Rapidly changing my mind by his bringing in Ashhahahahaha and running the deficit to an all time record...... the only thing he has going for him is his willing to stomp assholes like Saddam and Osama..... But thats not what is going to keep our country strong.... plus Kerry is Pro Medical Marijuana......that in itself says that he has an open mind...... unlike the Bush/Ashhahahahaha combination

yeah, that whole marijuana thing is really important.

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by 12clicks


yeah, that whole marijuana thing is really important.

agreed. so why spend billions of dollars to combat it?
why imprision people who have harmed noone?
employ that money/manpower to fight real crimes.

The Attorney General should be held responsible for every
tax dollar wasted on the 'War on Drugs' or the 'War on Porn'

[mikesouth]

Camchicks

You dont really understand obscenity law. The problem is not that Rob portrayed rape or violence, its that he did it in a sexual context AND that he did it in a patently offensive way.

His only potential out is if they can find that Forced Entry has serious literary social or scientific value, which in all honesty id unlikely. He will almost certainly go down on this particular charge.

the real value in his case will be deciding where the community is for community standards application and whether delivery of obscenity over the internet is that same as delivering via US Mail.

Now you can argue that staged rape is staged rape and should be treated as such whether in a mianstream film or a porn film but technically the jury cannot make that decision, the jury's task is to interpret the case as it applie to the law that he is accussed of breaking. You can bet your ass jury nullification will not be a part of this proceeding.

The law is on the books whether we think it should be or not.

Now Rob Black brought this on himself, he asked for it, but more importantly he brought it on the rest of us, we didn't ask for it. What Black is, is a moron and a common criminal. Do I think he should be in jail....abso fucking lutely.

do I think he should be in jail for obscenity absofuckinglutey not.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by CamChicks


agreed. so why spend billions of dollars to combat it?
why imprision people who have harmed noone?
employ that money/manpower to fight real crimes.

do a search on drug related murder, honey.

[12clicks]

Originally posted by mikesouth
Camchicks

You dont really understand obscenity law. The problem is not that Rob portrayed rape or violence, its that he did it in a sexual context AND that he did it in a patently offensive way.

His only potential out is if they can find that Forced Entry has serious literary social or scientific value, which in all honesty id unlikely. He will almost certainly go down on this particular charge.

the real value in his case will be deciding where the community is for community standards application and whether delivery of obscenity over the internet is that same as delivering via US Mail.

Now you can argue that staged rape is staged rape and should be treated as such whether in a mianstream film or a porn film but technically the jury cannot make that decision, the jury's task is to interpret the case as it applie to the law that he is accussed of breaking. You can bet your ass jury nullification will not be a part of this proceeding.

The law is on the books whether we think it should be or not.

Now Rob Black brought this on himself, he asked for it, but more importantly he brought it on the rest of us, we didn't ask for it. What Black is, is a moron and a common criminal. Do I think he should be in jail....abso fucking lutely.

do I think he should be in jail for obscenity absofuckinglutey not.

Exactly. Bush and the AG had nothing to do with writing the law and have enforced it almost not at all.
I loove who these dopey kids can be scared by talk when actions are right in front of them to see.

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by mikesouth
Camchicks

You dont really understand obscenity law. The problem is not that Rob portrayed rape or violence, its that he did it in a sexual context AND that he did it in a patently offensive way.

His only potential out is if they can find that Forced Entry has serious literary social or scientific value, which in all honesty id unlikely. He will almost certainly go down on this particular charge.

the real value in his case will be deciding where the community is for community standards application and whether delivery of obscenity over the internet is that same as delivering via US Mail.

Now you can argue that staged rape is staged rape and should be treated as such whether in a mianstream film or a porn film but technically the jury cannot make that decision, the jury's task is to interpret the case as it applie to the law that he is accussed of breaking. You can bet your ass jury nullification will not be a part of this proceeding.

The law is on the books whether we think it should be or not.

Now Rob Black brought this on himself, he asked for it, but more importantly he brought it on the rest of us, we didn't ask for it. What Black is, is a moron and a common criminal. Do I think he should be in jail....abso fucking lutely.

do I think he should be in jail for obscenity absofuckinglutey not.

I understand the law. The law is unconstitutional.
The law is unjust. Unjust laws should not be enforced.
Janet Reno did not enforce these unjust laws.
She put those resources toward fighting REAL child abuse.
Ashhahahahaha would rather go after the fantasies of consenting adults.

It would be nice if we could rely on Jury nullification,
but there are just as many facists in society as there are in office.
The 1st Amendment is designed to protect unpopular and/or
minority speech/press from the personal agendas of others.

IMO everyone, from the person who preseted the bill,
to the person who handcuffed the defendant,
should be held accountable for participating in rights violations.

If officers refused to arrest people for unjust laws,
then some old self-rightous fuck selling away rights...
imprisoning people.. all for a few more votes...
well, they'd be a whole lot less dangerous to our freedom.

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by 12clicks


do a search on drug related murder, honey.

do a search on alcohol related murder during the days of prohibition.
when you make 'vices' illegal, it makes the distribution more violent.

[webair]

Originally posted by gornyhuy
I love it... now how can we actually get him elected when Bush has over 100 million stashed away ?

VOTE

[Lykos]

Cool...

[VirtuMike]

Unfortunately, the election system is still incredibly fucked up.

I know that my vote is useless. My state almost always votes Democrat. I am really sure that it will again, whether I vote or not.

The good part about that statement is that I live right down the street from 12clicks and his vote is negligible also.

Most of the more populated and "civilized" states traditionally vote Democrat - NY, CA, NJ, PA, etc. The election will be won in a couple "swing states". It sucks having to have a state like Florida or Missouri control the fate of the free world, but until the electoral college system is eliminated, we're stuck.

[Mr.Fiction]

In what may be the first subpoena of its kind in decades, a federal judge has ordered a university to turn over records about a gathering of anti-war activists.

In addition to the subpoena of Drake University, subpoenas were served this past week on four of the activists who attended a Nov. 15 forum at the school, ordering them to appear before a grand jury Tuesday, the protesters said.

In addition to records about who attended the forum, the subpoena orders the university to divulge all records relating to the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a New York-based legal activist organization that sponsored the forum.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._investigation

This is what 12 Clicks wants America to be like. A little like Russia under the Communists.

What he doesn't understand is that one day Hillary will be president and these unconstitutional powers that he wants to give to Bush, will be controlled by someone he hates.

[phogirl69]

Originally posted by CamChicks


I understand the law. The law is unconstitutional.
The law is unjust. Unjust laws should not be enforced.

"Unjust laws should not be enforced?" Just because you feel that the law is unjust does not deter from the fact that it is still law and can be enforced. More appropiately, unjust laws should be challenged, or you can lobby or go through legal channels for change; there is a certain protocal to go through if you want the laws changed.

If everyone felt that "unjust laws should not be enforced" prbably NO laws would be enforced.

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by phogirl69


"Unjust laws should not be enforced?" Just because you feel that the law is unjust does not deter from the fact that it is still law and can be enforced. More appropiately, unjust laws should be challenged, or you can lobby or go through legal channels for change; there is a certain protocal to go through if you want the laws changed.

If everyone felt that "unjust laws should not be enforced" prbably NO laws would be enforced.

If it were law that a woman be stoned to death for having premarital sex (including rape), would it be right to enforce that simply because it is law?


Should we be enforcing anti-sodomy laws?
There are still current laws against it.
Here are the penalties:

Alabama (1 year/$2,000)
Florida (60 days/$500)
Idaho (5 years to life)
Louisiana (5 years/$2,000)
Mississippi (10 years)
North Carolina (10 years/discretionary fine)
Puerto Rico (10 years)
South Carolina (5 years/$500)
Utah (6 months/$1,000)
Virginia (1-5 years)


Should we enforce laws that put people in prison for prefering pot to alcohol?


Many laws have nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with politics.
The lawmakers dont care how many lives they ruin, if it keeps them in office.

Anyone who supports an unjust law deserves punishment,
more than those who would be punished by an unjust law.

Our justice system recognizes this, even if some lawmakers/prosecutors do not.

You are free to vote on the verdict according to your conscience. You may not increase the charges, but you may vote to acquit, even though the evidence shows that the person "did it", if your conscience so dictates. And if you think the charges are too high, you can ask the judge to tell you about any reduced charges of which you might, in good conscience, be able to find the defendant guilty. The same options apply if you learn that the evidence was gathered in a way that violated the rights of the accused, or if you believe the government is just trying to flex its muscle by making an example out of the defendant, or feel that you were not allowed access to some of the facts of the case, or that victimless crimes should not be punished, or for any other reason you believe that justice will not be served by finding the defendant guilty as charged.

When a jury agrees that despite convincing evidence proving the defendant acted as accused, justice can only be served by bringing in a verdict of not guilty, or finding the defendant guilty of reduced charges, or by not awarding the damages claimed by the plaintiff in a civil suit, its action is called "jury nullification", or the exercise of "jury veto power".

This power to "do the right thing" even when the defendant is, by the letter of the law, guilty or liable, dates back for centuries, and is the very backbone of the jury system. Since the Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215, trial jurors in the English and American systems have had the duty to apply conscience whenever a strict application of the law would produce an injustice. And you should never feel that you "owe" it to the government or to a private plaintiff to find the defendant guilty of a lesser charge, or liable for a reduced amount of damage, when you really don't believe that any harm was done.

If someone asks you to support something you know is unjust,
it is your duty to tell them to "go fuck yourself".

[venturi]

Originally posted by webair
VOTE

Amen!

[Loryn]

Originally posted by CamChicks

If it were law that a woman be stoned to death for having premarital sex (including rape), would it be right to enforce that simply because it is law?

WTF?? When in America was that ever an option???

What an ignorant response to a logical post!!!

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by Loryn-Adult.com


WTF?? When in America was that ever an option???

What an ignorant response to a logical post!!!

I know you are a right winger who worships the ground Bush walks on, but please don't tell us you support A-s-h-c-r-o-f-t and the Patriot Act too?

[Loryn]

Originally posted by CamChicks
It's not really news, but I went to John Kerrys website
and it made me giggle that he has a section dedicated to
'End the Era of Ashcr0ft'

I'm starting to like this guy.
No doubt adult webmasters would be safer with him.

He forgot about the feminists!!

Damn it, so close to keeping porn!!!

[12clicks]

Originally posted by CamChicks


do a search on alcohol related murder during the days of prohibition.

I did, it came up empty. run along and find yourself an argument that works.

Originally posted by CamChicks
when you make 'vices' illegal, it makes the distribution more violent.

what's the next vice you think we should legalize?
theft?
murder?
grow up honey.

[Loryn]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction


I know you are a right winger who worships the ground Bush walks on, but please don't tell us you support A-s-h-c-r-o-f-t and the Patriot Act too?

OMG where in that whole fucking post did I say anything about Ashhahahahaha and my personnel views???

You're right, I am not a liberal. If Bush does something I disagree with I will say it. The values I have are solid, whether I like a person or not.

Basically that means, if I like you and you're wrong I'll still tell ya. And if I don't like you and you're right I will acknowledge you are right. I do not change my values over my "emotional feelings" for a person.

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by Loryn-Adult.com


WTF?? When in America was that ever an option???

What an ignorant response to a logical post!!!

I do recall some women being burned alive for "tempting"/"seducing" men with "witchcraft".

That was the law of the time. My point; the law isn't always right.
People who hide behind unjust laws to harm/imprison others
are at least as evil as those who do so of their own volition.

The position that phogirl69 expressed,
that we should follow all laws just because they are written, is dangerous.

Originally posted by Martin Luther King
"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."

If people don't refuse unjust laws, and fight those who create them,
and fight those who enforce them, then they will suffer under them.

If you are a Congressman, Prosecutor, Judge, Agent, or Police Officer,
and you assist the process to roll over the rights of individuals,
then you deserve a share in the blame.

We, everyone, must make it very clear to would-be facists
(and those who may serve as their muscle) that anyone who
participates in modernday witchhunts will be held accountable.
Fire the officers who beat back those marching for civil rights.
Recall the lawmakers who order them.

[CamChicks]

Originally posted by 12clicks

I did, it came up empty. run along and find yourself an argument that works.

Do you really need the history of prohibition explained to you?

Originally posted by 12clicks


what's the next vice you think we should legalize?
theft?
murder?
grow up honey.

theft and murder are in a different legal category to "vices".
Vices are 'immorality'.
In other words, crimes that god doesn't like.
... not crimes that violate other peoples rights.

Narcotics/Vice Squad is responsible for investigations of the unlawful use, possession, and sale of narcotic drugs, hallucinogenic drugs, depressants, stimulants, and cannabis, as well as investigations of gambling, prostitution, obscenity, pornography, and other vice related activities.

all of those things should be legal.

[Joe Citizen]

Originally posted by 12clicks


do a search on drug related murder, honey.

Yes, potheads are known for their tendency to commit violent acts!

Bwahahahahahaha!!

Completely clueless doesn't even begin to describe you.

[Loryn]

Originally posted by CamChicks


If people don't refuse unjust laws, and fight those who create them,
and fight those who enforce them, then they will suffer under them.

If you are a Congressman, Prosecutor, Judge, Agent, or Police Officer,
and you assist the process to roll over the rights of individuals,
then you deserve a share in the blame.

We, everyone, must make it very clear to would-be facists
(and those who may serve as their muscle) that anyone who
participates in modernday witchhunts will be held accountable.
Fire the officers who beat back those marching for civil rights.
Recall the lawmakers who order them.

There is a whole process to fight laws you disagree with. The fact that you would choose anarchy as a form of dealing with what you believe is an unjust law and then to encourage people TODAY to break laws their conscience tells them is okay and is an unjust law shows how much respect you have for civil rights.

What if a person?s conscience is not bothered by fucking an 8 year old? Hey it?s okay it didn?t bother their conscience it must be an unjust law.


Fire officers who beat back marchers for civil rights?? So if civil rights activist are marching their way down the street and begin to get out of control and violate other innocent bystander?s civil rights, we should fire all the officers that stop them??

Honey get with the times, anyone can march against anything and officers will be sent to the location to protect them from people who disagree with them and also protect innocent people standing by in case the marchers get out of control.

Recall lawmakers who order them??? So should we have a vote first, across America, to see if it's unjust or just go with what ever YOU think??

Maybe you should just get all your people together and beat, fire, lock up all that do not follow your views. Basically have your own witch-hunt, and make everyone agree with your opinion on civil rights. Anyone who disagrees

[daisy diaz]

CamChicks, I totally respect your open mind. I wish more in our industry felt the same. I do worry about Kerry, when you learn more about him , he is a photo-copy of Bush.
I have spent alot of time promoting my canidate. From bumper stickers to pins on my clothes to phone banking and canvassing. In doing this it made me realize that every vote DOES count.
I would love to share some links about Kerry if you are interested in seeing them.
I am just happy with myself that I have realized that my VOTE does count and CAN change what happens to people in this country not just those who are "rich". When the people speak..and enough of them do it, things can change!!!
Keep Asshahahahaha out of our beds...he is a sucky sleeping partner!

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by Loryn-Adult.com


There is a whole process to fight laws you disagree with. The fact that you would choose anarchy as a form of dealing with what you believe is an unjust law and then to encourage people TODAY to break laws their conscience tells them is okay and is an unjust law shows how much respect you have for civil rights.

Either you are joking or you are completely ignorant of history.

As a woman who probably enjoys her right to vote, did you ever wonder how you got that right?

Do a search for the term "suffragettes" on Google and see what comes up.

[daisy diaz]

Originally posted by Mr.Fiction

As a woman who probably enjoys her right to vote, did you ever wonder how you got that right?

Did you ever consider that possibly because women stepped up and fought for the right to vote with men standing behind them saying that equal rights means equal rights. Men who said equal rights is for all who believe in EQUAL RIGHTS not for those who can only afford it.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally posted by daisy diaz



Did you ever consider that possibly because women stepped up and fought for the right to vote with men standing behind them saying that equal rights means equal rights. Men who said equal rights is for all who believe in EQUAL RIGHTS not for those who can only afford it.

The point was that women's voting right's activists broke plenty of laws fighting for civil rights.

To say that breaking the law is equal to disrespecting civil rights, like Loryn-Adult.com posted, is not at all what history shows.

There are numerous cases throughout history (anyone on GFY ever heard of Gandhi or Rosa Parks?) where people broke or ignored the existing laws while fighting for civil rights. These are rights which we all take for granted now, but until some person or group of people decided to stand up to the government, to break the law, these rights did not exist.

[daisy diaz]

Nothing personal mr. fiction..but if breaking the law includes breaking the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights....then YES they broke the law. Perhaps the creator"s that stated "all people are created equal" were wrong? Are you saying that all people are not created equal.
On another note if you want to speak of Rosa Parks and Ghandi (do not know as much about him as I should) you may want to reference the womans suffrage movement at the beginning with Abigail Adams.