Reply With Quote
What was the last military anti-porn bill introduced by a Democrat?
Now I don't really know if he is a RINO, I haven't checked his record. However, he is introducing legislation that is typical of a democrat. Something that restricts the rights of the people:
Link:
Congressman Broun Introduces Anti-Pornography Legislation
part of link:
H.R. 5821Congressman Broun’s legislation makes the following specific changes to current law:
· Modifies the current definition of sexually explicit, to lower the threshold required to deem material sexually explicit.
· Adds a new definition of “principal theme” which makes it clear to the DoD that the threshold has been lowered.
· Adds a definition of “lascivious” that is broader than what is included in the DoD Instruction on the sale of sexually explicit material.
· Adds a definition of “nudity” that makes it much more difficult for the DoD’s Resale Activities Board of Review (RABR) to approve the sale of sexually explicit material.
· Requires that DoD annually review material that is not currently deemed sexually explicit (and therefore allowed) to determine if it should be prohibited. RABR failed to meet a single time between FY 2000 and 2005.
Now I know some who call themselves conservatives agree with such actions. It still is a violation of peoples rights. The military already restricts the hard porn, and Playboy and Penthouse actually have good article.
Now what about the other aspect of this? My knowledge of military life tells me that very few military people are into hard porn. Take the easiest location away to buy such material and the people will just buy it elsewhere. Some of these nearby locations will be hard porn shops, where now, military members well be introduced to even more porn yet!
What good does this bill do other than make peoples morality views feel better?
Oh... by reading HR 5821, I wonder if it would end up banning medical books for the military doctors?
What was the last military anti-porn bill introduced by a Democrat?
a military person is old enough to vote and to die in action, but not adult enough to look at what the person wants to?
hard/soft porn is an impossible distinction, unless "you just know when you see it", impossible to codify technically.
block the illegal porn (sex with under-age, etc) but let them see whatever any US adult can see.
Yeah, Democrats are always introducing anti-porn bills.
You seriously need to trim back those partisan blinders of yours.
Yes, I am being partisan here. It's always democrats who I see as restricting peoples rights for no good reason.
i am a conservative who is against porn.
- Mars
Besides, I never said he was RINO's in a factual way. The libertarian in me gets real pissed at stuff like this. I don't watch porn or read such magazines, but that doesn't mean this is right.
Looks like we have more pandering to Organized Religion here. Religeous values are good, until they impose their values on others like democrats like to do.
All the co-sposores are republicans also:
Akin, W. Todd [MO-2]
Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6]
Bishop, Rob [UT-1]
Chabot, Steve [OH-1]
Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4]
Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1]
Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] (switched from a democrat... NEOCON!)
King, Steve [IA-5]
Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4]
Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 4/16/2008
Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16]
Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6]
Sali, Bill [ID-1] - 4/16/2008
Shays, Christopher [CT-4]
Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4]
Souder, Mark E. [IN-3
Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1]
OK...
Do you impose your values upon others?
aren't you imposing your values on me by not being tolerant of my anti-porn view?
- Mars
I guess having solved all the really important problems, the Lege figured this needed fixing.
What a steaming pile of this bill is.
No ... it looks like this bill is restricted to DoD facilities (i.e., military bases). That is, this guy is not trying to ban porn altogether.
I've heard about this bill -- it only seeks to ban the sale of porn in military exchanges and gas stations. I'm basically for it. (I'd also be okay with banning the sale of booze on military bases. If the guys want to buy it, they can go off base and get it.)
The rationale: the military is trying harder to reduce the strain on families who are in the service. Porn (and hard booze) is not consistent with the "culture" they're trying to encourage. So I can understand the bill.
So why doesn't the military just ban it themselves?The rationale: the military is trying harder to reduce the strain on families who are in the service.
And really, you can't think of anything that is causing a greater strain on military families right now?
Calm down, Snake.
If you want your wack-off magazines, you can go off-base and get them.
Kinda hard to call it a "RINO" bill if most Republicans seem ok with it.
It's not really a freedom-of-speech issue (not that porn is necessarily always covered by that). It's merely a move to get it out of the military exchanges. That's all.
what do you want them to do when they get back with a mental disability brought on by stress from a failed conservative endeavour? well....besides being kicked to the curb.
I nor Don here would be so boastful as to consider ourselves the official spokesmen for the Republican Party. I will not speak for Don, but I consider myself to be more to the right than the average elephant.
- Mars
Last edited by ClingingMars; 05-10-2008 at 12:58 PM.
Don't quote the trolls, either!
When I was in the military (99-05), there was already talk of getting porn and booze out of the exchanges, and this was from the commanders and, not surprisingly, the families on base.
Booze, I understand, because a DUI is almost an automatic loss-of-stripe for an enlisted guy, and it's the kiss of death for an officer. He may as well start making plans for civilian life. They felt it was inconsistent to be severe on DUIs, and then turn around and sell hard booze and beer at the gas stations.
And porn, again, I understand. As a former Air Force guy and future Army chaplain, I know full well the high calling of serving in the U.S. military. It's a call to character as much as it is a "call to arms," and porn is not consistent with that character. Are we so silly to think that servicemen who want Juggs and Hustler can't get it off base? No. But that doesn't mean the DoD ought to support it, either.
So why doesn't the military ban them without an act of congress?
This is true. I started the thread before finding out as much as I should have. Notice I changed my point, saying they were appealing to "Organized Religion?"
It takes away freedoms, unnecessarily. There is no reason for this except to impose morality upon others. Morality control is actually accepted to some degree in the military, but it is limited to actions that affect others. Congress has better things to do, and this just crosses the line.
Excellent point. Congress doesn't need to micromanage the military like this. If this is to be done, it should come from the chain of command. Not somebody's thought of moral superiority.
Sweet, tell the guys over in Iraq and Afghanistan that they have to leave the base and walk down to the local smut house to buy it there.
There's a difference between being tolerant and agreeing with it.
The military should be the only ones making this call, not some politician in D.C. looking to bag some votes. If it's really got that adverse of an affect on the troops, the Joint Chiefs would have banned it by now.
So the DoD has decided in the past that it's okay for these materials to be sold, but this prick of a senator wants to close up this loop hole.
Lame.
Okay, fine. I'm not sure if the DoD can act on this without a bill from Congress. I don't know either way. I was only making the case against the exchanges selling porn in general.
And, as far an appeal to "organized religion," I'm not sure this case fits your objection. You can make a nonreligious, secular argument against porn, and indeed, there are many nonreligious people, and prac ioners of other religions (Judaism, Islam, etc.) who are also against porn on military bases. The National Review, a secular conservative magazine, has had lively debate on it recently. My point here, there is not a specific religious group behind this, and I'm not sure how such a bill benefits any particular group.
Next, I would advise conservatives in general to allow people from all religious perspectives to bring their views to the table. In a free society, this ought to be the norm. In today's world, however, we see a lot of anti-religious bigotry from the Left, and the unfree government under Islam. Let's not be like them!
Last, the idea of "legislating morality" is a bit of a red herring. We legislate morality all the time, and have since the beginning of civilization. Murder is wrong (and other things!), therefore it is illegal. Etc. It's amazing how many people get all bothered about restricting abortion, and scream that you cannot legislate morality!, and then turn around and say that we need more laws to protect minorities, to protect the environment. Why? Because we ought to, and it's immoral to not protect minorities. I'd rather just drop the charade and pit our morality against theirs.
exactly, but most liberals blur that line.
- Mars
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
