.XXX ?

[Videoskooter]

Just when many pornsites were planning to take the extension .xxx instead of .com or something like that, the American government has postponed the authorisation. They recieved 6000 demands from religious and conservative people who are objecting against "filth" on the net.

I think it was a good idea to use .xxx so there can not be any confusion anymore with the other "normal" websites. Easier to control by parents so I think it's wrong to forbid the new extension.

Discoman, do something about this. You are a conservative and you like porn, so this is your chance to go into politics

[DiscoMan]

I'm not a CONSERVATIVE. In matters of personnal choice I'm libertarian (or could it be libertine). I vote Republican because they do the least damage to:

A. The U.S. Constitution.
B. The People's rights.
C. Civil Liberties.
C. My pocketbook.
D. National Defense.

I think this *.xxx is a good move. We have the right to object to "filth on the net". I don't happen to believe it's a federal issue unless it comes under the heading of "Interstate Commerce".

[BrunoRepublic]

I don't understand the rationale behind this. It's not like the net isn't already full of porn as it is.

[DiscoMan]

Some people want porno sites ID'd as ".xxx". Porn is porn is porn...

[paul]

I'm not a CONSERVATIVE. In matters of personnal choice I'm libertarian (or could it be libertine). I vote Republican because they do the least damage to:

A. The U.S. Constitution.
B. The People's rights.
C. Civil Liberties.
C. My pocketbook.
D. National Defense.

I think this *.xxx is a good move. We have the right to object to "filth on the net". I don't happen to believe it's a federal issue unless it comes under the heading of "Interstate Commerce".

I just couldn't pass this up.

A. The U.S. Constitution What about establishing free speech zones and loyalty oaths when there is opposition voices. When I had civics in Jr High, they said all of America was a free speech zone :roll:
Then there are the arrest of those who might show up with Kerry T-shirts or bumber stickers!
Did I miss a line or 2 in the constitution that allows Bush to do this?
B. The People's rights. The Patriot Act and it's provision to allow law enforcement do unconstitutional search and seizure. This violates the 4th amendment.
C. Civil Liberties. In addition to all of the above, what about Bush and his fellow repubs finding time to interfere with the Terri Schiavo medical situation?
C. My pocketbook. $3/gallon gas and rising, a sluggish economy. The last numbers I saw showed poverty going up for the first 3 years under Bush. Heck, google the poll numbers and somewhere around 60 percent of americans disapprove of the way he is handling the economy.
D. National Defense. 9/11 happened under Bush! We can't get enough bodies to sign up for the Iraq war, our National Gaurdsmen are in Iraq, troops are poorly equipped, etc.

With republicans running all branches of government, those things you just listed don't reflect the way they govern or the nation we live in. They make great talking points for their base though :roll:

[DiscoMan]

Paul, go back to Moscow U.

It's obvious you have tunnel vision and know **** about U.S. political history or the constitution.

[paul]

Paul, go back to Moscow U.

It's obvious you have tunnel vision and know **** about U.S. political history or the constitution.

OK, I won't confuse you with the facts because I know the truth hurts sometimes

[DiscoMan]

Your hysterical emotional rant did nothing to open the discussion. Learn something about U.S. political and constitutional history and then maybe we can have a somewhat lucid discussion. Lucidity among you left wing types is difficult to come by but I promise I'll try to be patient and help you learn something.

As you're such an eminent scholar in subject history; what was the vote split for the Civil Rights Act Of 1964?

[paul]

Well, relieve me from my hysteria and elighten me. 8)
I believe I know where you're going with the '64 vote. Why don't you tell us however. We can go from there.

[DiscoMan]

Sure:

Democrats; 92 for, 103 against

Republicans; 138 for, 34 against.

So before you start one of your left wing I hate Bush hysterical rants educate yourself in the subject or you will appear to only be the hypocrite you and other liberals are.

[paul]

Sure:

Democrats; 92 for, 103 against

Republicans; 138 for, 34 against.

So before you start one of your left wing I hate Bush hysterical rants educate yourself in the subject or you will appear to only be the hypocrite you and other liberals are.

Hi Discoman. I don't know the source for your numbers but here is a link to my source on that and how it broke down. The numbers that are significant here are the votes on the Senate version of that Bill voted on by the House. That would be the one President Johnson (a Democrat) signed.
After you review it, we can keep going. 8)

[paul]

Oops, forgot the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Civil_Rights_Act

[DiscoMan]

Republicans in the Senate were in the minority and they overwhelmingly voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (27 for, 6 no). So don't run around distorting history and insulting good honest Americans like your nut-bag friends Harry Belafonte and Dick Gregory and Julian Bond. I remember when I was a young guy how much I admired and respected Julian Bond. Today he's just a hysterical bigot. And not the guy I remember.

[remicks]

*****

Here's the real story ..... if we're really trying to clear up distortions of who voted how :


The Original House Version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10

Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24

Those shameful Southern Democrats are today's Republican party .....

****

[paul]

Well Remicks, that's exactly where I was going. I was (with all due respect) hoping to guide Discoman along this historical path.
Discoman, how am I distorting history?
To get back to Remicks' point, yes many Southern Dems (Dixiecrats) left the party and became Republicans once Johnson signed the legislation. This includes the rank & file to your Jesse Helms and Strom Thurman. Later Nixon recognizing this embraced the Southern Strategy using code words like "Law and Order." Reagan used it when he used code words like "states rights." Your current President used this strategy when he went to Bob Jones University. At the time they prohibited interracial dating.
Some of this info you can get at the site I sent you, or you can google it.
With all that having being said, I want to know how you (Discoman) are relating hating Bush to this?

[paul]

I'm not a CONSERVATIVE. In matters of personnal choice I'm libertarian (or could it be libertine). I vote Republican because they do the least damage to:

A. The U.S. Constitution.
B. The People's rights.
C. Civil Liberties.
C. My pocketbook.
D. National Defense.

To further add an exclamation point this, CNN has reported that poverty went up in 2004. This makes it 4 straight years it went up. That's every year under Bush.
Unless you are one of Bush's pals in the oil or energy busy, the pocketbook issue is a big lie!

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/30/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

[Mixmachine]

To further add an exclamation point this, CNN has reported that poverty went up in 2004

CNN ?, that bastion of objectivity? they are better known in my area as the "Castro News Network" :lol: :lol:

[paul]

Mixmachine, I know it's hard to break the "bumber sticker" mentality many of you Bush supporters have but I gotta believe you're smarter than that. CNN is merely reporting what the US Census Bureau said. Did you even bother to make it through the first paragraph? :o

[Mixmachine]

Did you even bother to make it through the first paragraph? :o

I could care less what CNN says,that station is blocked by me in my system, if Ted Turner and CNN ever had any shread of credibility they lost it all after the declarations thier CEO revealed a couple of years back reguarding how they weere allowed to be the only "reporting" bureu in Bagdad during the first Golf war and behond, look it up, they probably do the same in Cuba, basically they look the other way of the 'real' news as long as they can get the "exclusive" first.

[paul]

Well, here's the link from the US Census Bureau.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/pover...4/pov04hi.html