Congress passes huge anti-indecency fines 99-1

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-06-23 01:34pm

Durandal wrote:Who was the one person who actually gives a shit about the Bill or Rights?

My boy Breaux from Louisiana, although he claims to have voted that way because it was a communications subjects tacted onto a defense spending bill. Take that for what you will.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-06-23 01:48pm

Let's make one thing clear, the congress would not be passing this law if not for the fact they obviously have a broad base of support for it. If the majority of Americans were opposed to this then there would have been a different outcome.

Pathetic and sad but true. people are always more than happy to give away their rights especially if its for a greater good. Everytime I see one of these laws pass I always hear that Simpson's character wail "Won't anyone please think of the children."

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-23 01:54pm

I believe that's Mrs. Lovejoy.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-23 01:58pm

If the gov't won't allow tits on TV, I suggest they get rid of Bush.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-06-23 02:48pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:If the gov't won't allow tits on TV, I suggest they get rid of Bush.

That is funny on 8 different levels. and to it I say:

FUQ FUQ FUQ FUQ FUQ!!!!!! FUCKING FUQ!!!!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-23 02:58pm

Stravo wrote:Pathetic and sad but true. people are always more than happy to give away their rights especially if its for a greater good. Everytime I see one of these laws pass I always hear that Simpson's character wail "Won't anyone please think of the children."

No one thinks the "let's protect the children" mentality is bad when it's applied to child porn. The problem is not the attitude of protecting children (egads, what a horrible attitude

), but the fact that puritans think an exposed tit will actually harm children.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-06-23 03:31pm

It's not just these attitudes though; how many Senators were you really going to get to vote down the defense appropriation bill on account of some rider?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-23 03:44pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:It's not just these attitudes though; how many Senators were you really going to get to vote down the defense appropriation bill on account of some rider?

If a Democrat does, it can be used later as proof that he opposes the military.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-06-23 03:46pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:It's not just these attitudes though; how many Senators were you really going to get to vote down the defense appropriation bill on account of some rider?

Is the attitude 'It's military! We must vote for it!' really that much better?

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-06-23 08:50pm

SirNitram wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:It's not just these attitudes though; how many Senators were you really going to get to vote down the defense appropriation bill on account of some rider?
Is the attitude 'It's military! We must vote for it!' really that much better?

I think it's along the line of;

"The military need this money to win the War on Terror. This will make Amerika strong and free of all evil. How can you oppose that?"

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-06-23 09:01pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Stravo wrote:Pathetic and sad but true. people are always more than happy to give away their rights especially if its for a greater good. Everytime I see one of these laws pass I always hear that Simpson's character wail "Won't anyone please think of the children."
No one thinks the "let's protect the children" mentality is bad when it's applied to child porn. The problem is not the attitude of protecting children (egads, what a horrible attitude ), but the fact that puritans think an exposed tit will actually harm children.

The point there Mike is that people will trot the 'protect the children' shit out whenever they try to pass something that is puritanical or moralistic. Its a lot easier to swallow when you use the kids as a reason and not your own hatred of sexuality.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-23 10:31pm

Since Breaux is retiring, he doesn't need to worry about an ad saying "Senator Breaux supports titties and terrorism. Vote him out before he can hurt our children."

PrinceofLowLight · Post by **PrinceofLowLight** » 2004-06-24 01:32am

I always try to stick up for US actions. Not so much here, but in class and such. Y'know, because running a country, especially a superpower isn't fucking easy and you're bound to run into situations where every possible course of action results in people getting their lives fucked over. But it's shit like this that makes me get tired of defending my government.

LapsedPacifist · Post by **LapsedPacifist** » 2004-06-24 06:37pm

On the bright side we'll be able to measure our national debt in Boobs.

LP