Wow....2257 is no F'ing Big Deal Compared to THIS!! - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

Mr.Fiction · 07-23-2005, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I do not "blindly follow everything the government does and argue about how right it is."

You blindly follow Fox.

The exceptions you list are just ones that you heard on Fox. You only disagree with the government when Fox says it's ok.

Try thinking for yourself for a change!

100?

mardigras · 07-23-2005, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Still, the taxes you list have nothing to do with free speech. Porn is speech, whether it's offensive to some people or not.

The taxes I listed were to show that our system of taxation is neither equal nor consistent.

Please show me any regulation that says the govenment cannot tax a for profit industry, even if some would say it's not entertainment or a service, but free speech.

Linkster · 07-23-2005, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giorgio_Xo

The South is racist and close-minded.

Would you like to explain that to me? I guess Im too close minded to understand it???

Lets see - definition of racist - to make derogatory remarks about one group of people
definition of close-minded - doesn't recognize the fact that other people have opinions

Redrob · 07-23-2005, 11:38 AM

Senator Santorum's view on Freedom of Speech:

"But you may have noticed that in pornography the words aren?t really the point, are they? ?Speech? implies words, rationally intelligible discussion and argument, communication. Pictures also can be ?worth a thousand words,? of course: Sometimes images are central to a political or social cause. But America?s huge porn industry is not about political debate; it is not about the communication of ideas. It?s about the commercial production of objects of titillation for profit. Based on the text of the Constitution, the courts should have recognized a hierarchy of protected ?speech,? with political speech and writing receiving the greatest constitutional protection, commercial speech less protection, and mere titillation the least of all."

For full article, visit:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0507210812.asp

Also, did you know that the Catholic Church keeps secret archives in each diocese? It is required by Cannon Law and records "matters of morals."

Read more about the secret inworkings of the Catholic Church at:

http://www.snapnetwork.org/Special_i...on%20Paper.pdf

Mr.Fiction · 07-23-2005, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

Please show me any regulation that says the govenment cannot tax a for profit industry, even if some would say it's not entertainment or a service, but free speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Look up the word "abridge".

Make it simple. Would it be constitutional to tax only hip-hop music?

theking · 07-23-2005, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Still, the taxes you list have nothing to do with free speech. Porn is speech, whether it's offensive to some people or not.

Porn is free speech...serving up porn for sale is not free speech it is a for sale service...entertainment service.

GatorB · 07-23-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronbotx

Sorry the ACLU is too busy protecting child molesters and terrorists.....

You do realize that the relgious right make ZERO distinction between CP and regular porn and consider us and pedophiles one in the same. Also many in the religious right consider us MORE of a threat to American society than terrorists. I don't agree with the KKK but I sure as hell back their right to say what they want. that's the thing about freedom, if you want your own sometimes you have to defend someone elses you may not like. Picking and choosing WHICH people get to have rights and which one don't deseve them is a dangerous thing. So just be thankful the ACLU is there trying to protect your ass because they'll end up doing more for you than the stupid FSC ever will. I don't see the FSC making any comments on this either.

theking · 07-23-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

You blindly follow Fox.

The exceptions you list are just ones that you heard on Fox. You only disagree with the government when Fox says it's ok.

Try thinking for yourself for a change!

100?

Pig shit. C-Span is my primary source of news...as I prefer my news from the "horses mouth". My thinking is mine after having weighed the pros and cons...thankyou very much. Now feel free to

Mr.Fiction · 07-23-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Porn is free speech...serving up porn for sale is not free speech it is a for sale service...entertainment service.

Book publishers have no free speech protection? You believe it would be constitutional to add a 25% tax to any book publisher who publishes books that are critical of Bill Clinton?

Redrob · 07-23-2005, 11:53 AM

GatorB,
see my posts of #53, 79, and 104.

theking · 07-23-2005, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Look up the word "abridge".

Make it simple. Would it be constitutional to tax only hip-hop music?

When something is for sale it is not free speech...it is a for sale service...entertainment service.

Mr.Fiction · 07-23-2005, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redrob

Based on the text of the Constitution, the courts should have recognized a hierarchy of protected ?speech,? with political speech and writing receiving the greatest constitutional protection, commercial speech less protection, and mere titillation the least of all."

Based on the text of the constitution?

The constitution makes no distinction on the type of speech. It wouldn't be free speech if the government could decide which speech was protected and which was not.

He should move to Saudi Arabia.

pocketkangaroo · 07-23-2005, 11:58 AM

All a tax will do is push companies to work overseas or offshore. It reminds me a lot of the online casino laws. Laws and taxes forced them offshore, and cost the government tax dollars they could have made from sponsors.

It's another stupid law and it will probably go through.

Mr.Fiction · 07-23-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

When something is for sale it is not free speech...it is a for sale service...entertainment service.

Books, movies, music, TV, radio, and art are not free speech?

theking · 07-23-2005, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Books, movies, music, TV, radio, and art are not free speech?

Of course they are and all pay taxes and some pay special taxes and all are subject to special taxes...just as the so called "sin taxes" that have been levied on certain products...and special zoning taxes that have been levied against strip clubs...adult stores...and even night clubs. As one pointed out taxes are not equal and with consistency.

This bill will probably die in committee...if it ever becomes law...the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionallity of it...end of story.

theking · 07-23-2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Based on the text of the constitution?

The constitution makes no distinction on the type of speech. It wouldn't be free speech if the government could decide which speech was protected and which was not.

He should move to Saudi Arabia.

The government...city...county...state....and federal has many and multiple impositions against total free speech. Combative speech is against the law in most jurisdictions...as is hate speech...traitorious speech...certain speech in advertisements...speech on the airways...etc. etc.

Bottom line...government can and does control limitations on free speech...and always has.

Mr.Fiction · 07-23-2005, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

The government...city...county...state....and federal has many and multiple impositions against total free speech. Combative speech is against the law in most jurisdictions...as is hate speech...traitorious speech...certain speech in advertisements...speech on the airways...etc. etc.

Bottom line...government can and does control limitations on free speech...and always has.

He specifically says "based on the text of the constitution", which does not make exceptions for speech that people don't like.

People like Santorum want the United States to be like Saudi Arabia and Cuba, where all speech has to be approved by the government or it is illegal.

theking · 07-23-2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

He specifically says "based on the text of the constitution", which does not make exceptions for speech that people don't like.

People like Santorum want the United States to be like Saudi Arabia and Cuba, where all speech has to be approved by the government or it is illegal.

I know what he said and I know what you said.

" It wouldn't be free speech if the government could decide which speech was protected and which was not."

And I pointed out to you that the government...city...county...state...and federal can and do control limitations on free speech.

Redrob · 07-23-2005, 12:49 PM

I don't know who said the quote; but, I like it:

"You don't live in a free country if you are never offended."

mardigras · 07-23-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Look up the word "abridge".

Make it simple. Would it be constitutional to tax only hip-hop music?

How is taxing porn prohibiting or curtailing it? It's not, no more than you could say that a restaurant tax prohibits food.

Hey, I fully believe that adults should be able to look at any porn they want to (featuring conscenting adults only), I'm just stating how the current government looks xcept CP & beastialityat it, don't forget we have an Attorney General who has gone on record saying that obscenity is not protected speech. As wrong as that may seem, that is the current situation.

mardigras · 07-23-2005, 02:25 PM

^xcept CP & beastialityat^
LOL, I used the mouse to highlight and edit, then it jumped as I saved and left this blub in, then it said my 3 minutes to fix it were up

What I was trying to say is I agree adults should be able to look at any porn they want featuring conscenting adults. Alberto Gonzales does not. I have less sayso than he does. I didn't vote for this pack and I encouraged others not to as well. It's not me you have to convince of your beliefs

jimmyf · 07-23-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunkmaster

WASHINGTON - A Democratic lawmaker is planning to propose a new 25 percent federal tax on Internet pornography and new requirements for adult Web sites to help prevent children from looking at them.

I swear over 70% of the asswipe in Washington are a bunch of imbecile's, both parties.

Giorgio_Xo · 07-23-2005, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

Porn is free speech...serving up porn for sale is not free speech it is a for sale service...entertainment service.

Again, you are wrong.

jimmyf · 07-23-2005, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

That might actually SAVE us some tax money... I'll have to run some numbers. A reduction in taxes for porn peddlers would be an ironic fuckup! Whats next, directly subsidizing us? Woo hoo!

you really don't want the Gov't 2 do any thing, because if they do they are sure to fuck it up.

Giorgio_Xo · 07-23-2005, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I know what he said and I know what you said.

" It wouldn't be free speech if the government could decide which speech was protected and which was not."

And I pointed out to you that the government...city...county...state...and federal can and do control limitations on free speech.

If that's the case why did the American Nazi Party get to march in Illinois in the 60s, 70s, 80s?

jimmyf · 07-23-2005, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hinc

We need those people out of office....

Cant we get someone slightly liberal to produce voting machines ?

it's a Democratic that want's 2 do it.... how much more liberal do you want them..

jimmyf · 07-23-2005, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

They are talking about 25% more than what you already pay.

This politician needs to be impeached or exposed for whatever illegal shit he might be doing when no one is looking.

impeach a Demo.... you say

GatorB · 07-23-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyf

it's a Democratic that want's 2 do it.... how much more liberal do you want them..

She's from Arkansas. Who did Arkansas vote for in 2000 and 2004? BUSH. Fact is if you are a democrat in a republican state you have to act like a republican to keep your job. Actually republicans aren't really republicans anymore if you break it down. If you're "republican" and you actually believe in "republican" values them start voting liebrtarian please.

jimmyf · 07-23-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antonio

You get taxed 25% for running a porn site, THEN you get to pay your company tax , so you end up paying more taxes than before.

Ever heard of 'sin' taxes? Why do you think alchohol and cigarettes are so expensive?

yep, and in California you pay tax on a computer and desk when you buy it, and then you pay the county a use tax ever year to use it... you pay taxes on all Equipment you have.

For you people in California don't let the county you are in know that you work out of your home or they will be knocking on your door.... Checking out all your Equipment, computers, camera's, printers, desk's all kinds of shit... AND they will TAX you on it every year....

Mr.Fiction · 07-23-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyf

impeach a Demo.... you say

A right winger is a right winger no matter which party they claim. Kick all of the right wingers out if they are against free speech!

blackfeet · 07-23-2005, 02:51 PM

i don't understand why we can't do something about this ourselves. all of us combined have millions of web pages online. can't we inform the public about what's going on and have them write these politicians to lay off? we all grunt and bitch but we don't do anything but take it up the ass everytime.

Mr.Fiction · 07-23-2005, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mardigras

How is taxing porn prohibiting or curtailing it?

What if the tax was 90%? If you tax speech because you don't like it, you reduce it's effectiveness, thereby "abridging" it. Under the U.S. constitution, the government is not allowed to abridge speech that it does not like.

It is unconsitutional to tax speech because you don't like the speech.

Would it be constitutional to tax any book that promotes Christianity?

jimmyf · 07-23-2005, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bringer

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

yep that's true and now some guy in California got a few people together and are starting a company or have started it.. They want 2 take Sutter's (spelling) house he's one of the Justices that voted for this. They want 2 put there office building where his house is...

bringer · 07-23-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmyf

yep that's true and now some guy in California got a few people together and are starting a company or have started it.. They want 2 take Sutter's (spelling) house he's one of the Justices that voted for this. They want 2 put there office building where his house is...

hopefully they get every judge who voted for it. once their houses are walmart supercenters or apartment buildings they might see the error of their ways

jimmyf · 07-23-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bringer

using that logic news papers could be heavily taxed as well. i wonder how far we are from that reality

They are taxed in California

mardigras · 07-23-2005, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Fiction

What if the tax was 90%? If you tax speech because you don't like it, you reduce it's effectiveness, thereby "abridging" it. Under the U.S. constitution, the government is not allowed to abridge speech that it does not like.

It is unconsitutional to tax speech because you don't like the speech.

Would it be constitutional to tax any book that promotes Christianity?

The state of Louisiana slaps new property taxes anytime they feel like it. One of the poorest states in the country is the highest property taxed. If people don't like a 90% porn tax maybe they'll stop voting for fuckwits, it doesn't seem to matter in the other areas of their lives.

Who says the real reason Ms. Lincoln wants to tax internet porn because is because she's against it? I suspect it's more like Acacia and she sees the industry as "low hanging fruit".

tony286 · 07-23-2005, 06:37 PM

this is not a christian right plot, the christians dont want a online porn tax. If there is a tax then we are a legimate business and much much harder to prosecute because of that it will never pass.

07-23-2005, 11:38 AM	#104
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,791	Interesting Reads Senator Santorum's view on Freedom of Speech: "But you may have noticed that in pornography the words aren?t really the point, are they? ?Speech? implies words, rationally intelligible discussion and argument, communication. Pictures also can be ?worth a thousand words,? of course: Sometimes images are central to a political or social cause. But America?s huge porn industry is not about political debate; it is not about the communication of ideas. It?s about the commercial production of objects of titillation for profit. Based on the text of the Constitution, the courts should have recognized a hierarchy of protected ?speech,? with political speech and writing receiving the greatest constitutional protection, commercial speech less protection, and mere titillation the least of all." For full article, visit: http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0507210812.asp Also, did you know that the Catholic Church keeps secret archives in each diocese? It is required by Cannon Law and records "matters of morals." Read more about the secret inworkings of the Catholic Church at: http://www.snapnetwork.org/Special_i...on%20Paper.pdf

07-23-2005, 02:25 PM	#121
mardigras Bon temps! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: down yonder Posts: 14,194	^xcept CP & beastialityat^ LOL, I used the mouse to highlight and edit, then it jumped as I saved and left this blub in, then it said my 3 minutes to fix it were up What I was trying to say is I agree adults should be able to look at any porn they want featuring conscenting adults. Alberto Gonzales does not. I have less sayso than he does. I didn't vote for this pack and I encouraged others not to as well. It's not me you have to convince of your beliefs __________________ .

07-23-2005, 11:53 AM	#110
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,791	GatorB, see my posts of #53, 79, and 104.

07-23-2005, 11:58 AM	#113
pocketkangaroo Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 8,452	All a tax will do is push companies to work overseas or offshore. It reminds me a lot of the online casino laws. Laws and taxes forced them offshore, and cost the government tax dollars they could have made from sponsors. It's another stupid law and it will probably go through.

07-23-2005, 12:49 PM	#119
Redrob Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks. Posts: 4,791	I don't know who said the quote; but, I like it: "You don't live in a free country if you are never offended."

07-23-2005, 02:51 PM	#131
blackfeet Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 589	i don't understand why we can't do something about this ourselves. all of us combined have millions of web pages online. can't we inform the public about what's going on and have them write these politicians to lay off? we all grunt and bitch but we don't do anything but take it up the ass everytime.

07-23-2005, 06:37 PM	#137
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	this is not a christian right plot, the christians dont want a online porn tax. If there is a tax then we are a legimate business and much much harder to prosecute because of that it will never pass.