Congress passes huge anti-indecency fines 99-1

Mr Flibble · Post by **Mr Flibble** » 2004-06-22 09:06pm

Stormbringer wrote: And the reason they don't is that people won't vote for some one outside the major parties, making the whole mess a self fufilling prophecy. If you keep voting for one of the two parties and simply hoping then of course they don't stand a chance. Hope isn't a vote and counts for jack squat in an election.

Or you could at least attempt at giving them a chance and have a voting sysytem like australia's, where you can vote in order of preference, so voting for minor parties, doesn't throw your vote away.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-22 09:09pm

Mr Flibble wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: And the reason they don't is that people won't vote for some one outside the major parties, making the whole mess a self fufilling prophecy. If you keep voting for one of the two parties and simply hoping then of course they don't stand a chance. Hope isn't a vote and counts for jack squat in an election.
Or you could at least attempt at giving them a chance and have a voting sysytem like australia's, where you can vote in order of preference, so voting for minor parties, doesn't throw your vote away.

*shudders* I don't want to think how the old people would screw that one up. As scary as it sounds, they'd probably vote in Mr Facism himself, Pat Buchanan.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-06-22 09:34pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I am going to chuckle when I see the vote tally. I have a sneaking suspicion that John McCain may be that 1 vote... I dont know why...

Nah, my guess would be Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.

I disagree with him 90% of the time, but he's honest and straightforward and I admire that.
He's one of the few Senators with the sack to take unpopular stands based on principle.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-06-22 09:37pm

Looks like we both were wrong.

It was Senator John Breaux from Louisiana of all people.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-06-22 09:49pm

Wow. He must be a carpetbagger or something.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-22 09:58pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Wow. He must be a carpetbagger or something.

Or possibly the cherished image of all the south being run by masses of hicks that have no problem pissing on the Consitution in the name of God is wrong?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-06-22 10:02pm

Or possibly the cherished image of all the south being run by masses of hicks that have no problem pissing on the Consitution in the name of God is wrong

Well, no, in general I'd say that stereotype is dead-on, hence my surprise.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-22 10:04pm

Stormbringer wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:Wow. He must be a carpetbagger or something.
Or possibly the cherished image of all the south being run by masses of hicks that have no problem pissing on the Consitution in the name of God is wrong?

Yes of course, one man's vote on one bill for unknown reasons disproves all of the statistical data showing that the South is more religious than the North, all of the asinine (and recently passed, in many cases) sexual repression laws in southern states, and the statistics on church attendance.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-06-22 10:18pm

Um, this only applies to broadcast channels, right? Honestly, when was the last time you saw *insert movie* on NBC and decided to watch it istead of when it came on HBO or just pop in the CD?

While on priciple, this is dumb, very dumb! I don't see how it will really effect me or my TV viewing any.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-06-22 10:38pm

I still don't see how this is going to prevent anything "bad" being shown live, like Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or a (still hypothetical, but I can dream) streaker at a pompous dog show. In cases like that, all that will happen is that the politicians will be able to brag about fining somebody "responsible" for it.

I propose a compromise: there are a few "safe" channels, like the Disney channel, which parents can feel good about letting their children vegitate in front of. Then there will be a lot of other channels which you watch at your own "risk". Everybody wins!

Or is that too much like our current system to be worth---OHMYGOSHDARNGOD IT'S JANET JACKSON'S BREAST FAMILY VALUES ARE DISINTEGRATING PUT THE BIBLE BACK IN SCHOOLS TALK IN RUNON SENTENCES!!!!!

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-06-22 10:41pm

I propose a compromise: there are a few "safe" channels, like the Disney channel, which parents can feel good about letting their children vegitate in front of.

Are you out of your mind? Do you know how many cocks, dicks, and falics are in Disney movies? I can see my kids morals degrade as they watch Disney.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-22 10:50pm

Breaux is retiring.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-06-22 10:51pm

Jeepers, I feel sorry for you guys caught in the middle of this.

Here they've just started saying shit in the 8:00 timeslot. Is that good by international standard?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-22 11:55pm

What would be the bad side to passing an Amendment barring all riders?

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-06-22 11:55pm

MKSheppard wrote:Lets all burn that stupid bitch Janet Jackson in effigy for that stupid fucking wardrobe malfunction that led to this fucking bill.

Please. Janet Jackson was merely the convenient excuse for a measure which the Fundies have been trying to ram though so badly it hurt. And it's not her fault that the alledged opposition party are spineless.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2004-06-23 01:31am

Uraniun235 wrote:What would be the bad side to passing an Amendment barring all riders?

Congressmen have to think. But that would be good.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2004-06-23 06:51am

Stormbringer wrote: *shudders* I don't want to think how the old people would screw that one up. As scary as it sounds, they'd probably vote in Mr Facism himself, Pat Buchanan.

Thats why with that voting system, you have the option for voting along party lines, literally. You tick next to the party name and the party's preselected preferences are used to cast your vote about. Preferance vote trading is a big thing in Australian politics because of this.

If you really want to rank every politition up for election then you can.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-06-23 11:01am

It's rather interesting that the People's Republic of China just voted in a bill that will severely curb freedom of expression and censors almost all media and mandates huge fines and/or jail terms for "indecency", and it is all done in the name of "morality". The government line there is that young people must be protected from temptation to preserve their morality.

Sound familiar? It's the same rhetoric that's being pushed in the US, with the same justifications. You might want to ponder the implications of that...

Edi

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-23 11:08am

Edi wrote:It's rather interesting that the People's Republic of China just voted in a bill that will severely curb freedom of expression and censors almost all media and mandates huge fines and/or jail terms for "indecency", and it is all done in the name of "morality". The government line there is that young people must be protected from temptation to preserve their morality.

Sound familiar? It's the same rhetoric that's being pushed in the US, with the same justifications. You might want to ponder the implications of that...

Edi

In all fairness to the US, however, the motivation for the US regulations is what it claims to be, whereas the ulterior motivation for the Chinese regulations is to prevent influx of western-style entertainment.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-06-23 11:08am

Actually, I'd think that China just might have a smidgen more legitimacy to do such a thing than the US does. China has a really bad population problem, and they have to keep people from having sex. They may be figuring that the less sexually-explicit material people are exposed to, the less they'll want to have sex. Stupid and ineffective, yes, just like the US's policy, but "morality" might just be a cover for it.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-06-23 11:32am

with satelite radio, cable and satelite TV and limitless supplies of hentai and bukkake on the internet, what indecency does this stop anyway?

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-06-23 11:38am

Durandal wrote:Actually, I'd think that China just might have a smidgen more legitimacy to do such a thing than the US does. China has a really bad population problem, and they have to keep people from having sex. They may be figuring that the less sexually-explicit material people are exposed to, the less they'll want to have sex. Stupid and ineffective, yes, just like the US's policy, but "morality" might just be a cover for it.

It would be faster and easier to simply sterilize stupid people---starting with the people who support pushing their own standards of "decency" on everybody else. As an added bonus, if they did it gradually (it is, after all, a big project), they might get a bunch of stupid refugees going to various other countries in order to preserve their fertility. Amazingly enough, this would probably not be construed by the other countries as international terrorism.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-06-23 11:41am

Stormbringer wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:Wow. He must be a carpetbagger or something.
Or possibly the cherished image of all the south being run by masses of hicks that have no problem pissing on the Consitution in the name of God is wrong?

It was a damn rider; he's probably some anti-military guy and voted against it on that.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-06-23 11:48am

I doubt half the Chinese population even has regular access to that sort of stuff. Peasants grinding corn by hand, remember?

Although that one brick-and-thatch village had a satellite dish...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-06-23 11:52am

HemlockGrey wrote:I doubt half the Chinese population even has regular access to that sort of stuff. Peasants grinding corn by hand, remember?

Although that one brick-and-thatch village had a satellite dish...

Might have been a jumbo wok.