Gut Rumbles

September 20, 2005

i call bullshit!

WTF is the federal government thinking with crap like this? Why don't these blue-nosed, Puritan, meddling, overly-sensitive morality police just BAN FUCKING????

That'll work. Just pass a federal law banning ALL sexual intercourse. People will stop fucking right away and nannies can sleep well at night.

My ass. We are allegedly engaged in a War on Terror. The damn thing must already be won if we can waste money and manpower chasing pornography and "obscenity," whatever that is.

Bejus. Bullshit such as this is why I do not trust my government and why I resent like hell paying as much in taxes as I do. I cannot recall reading ANY news story where terrorists held a gun to someone's head and FORCED them to watch a fuck flick or look at a "Hustler" magazine.

If you don't want your kids seeing that stuff, then YOU mind your children. Don't ask (or EXPECT) the federal government to do that job for you.

What's wrong with watching consenting adults perform sexual acrobatics on video? You don't have to watch it if you don't want to. I kinda like to watch it from time to time. Does that fact make me a menace to society? I don't think so.

Besides--- this is an attack on the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it's being led by... guess who? The government.



Here's an excellent opportunity for GWB actually to look like a leader.

He needs to carve five minutes out of his busy day, for a sit down talk with the Director of of the FBI. When the talk is over the Director should immediately and publicly fire whichever idiots came up with and implemented this stupidity. Then GWB should publicly fire the Director.

Unfortunately it's not likely to happen.

Posted by: Gerry N. on September 20, 2005 05:00 PM

The theory is that GWB is behind this in an attempt to get the Pat Robertson / Ralph Reed wing of the Republican Party behind a future Alberto Gonzales nomination to the Supreme Court.

And if Gonzales agrees with this bullshit, then that should disqualify him from SCOTUS consideration.

As for the issue in general, I agree with Rob. I'm far more concerned that Al Qaida would unleash anthrax in Los Angeles than someone getting a boner watching Buttman Goes To Rio.

Posted by: Beaker on September 20, 2005 05:17 PM

Another reason that I believe that the far right religious right wing is as dangerous to the country as the far left.One wants to control your money and the other your life and neither believes in liberty

Posted by: GUYK on September 20, 2005 05:48 PM

It's like I said, when they're done with people like me, they'll be coming after you and you play into the far right's hands when you support this administration. This is their power base that Bush is pandering to

Beaker may be right in that it's a ploy to get Gonzales on the bench, but I don't think he's really a candidate.

This is in response to sinking poll numbers. The base is pissed off about the spending spree on Katrina so the White House, if you'll excuse the pun, is throwing them a bone to keep them on board.

Posted by: Libby on September 20, 2005 08:29 PM

GuyK, it's not the "far right" or "far left", but the Statist Right and the Statist Left that stand against the rest of us who are by and large libertarians of one flavor or another.

The focus of our struggle should be against statism/authoritarianism in whatever form it manifests. I'm all in favor of ditching the traditional left/right dichotomy, which all too often ends up separating people who would otherwise be allies on the issues that are really important--namely those that impact our personal liberty.

Posted by: Desert Cat on September 21, 2005 12:10 AM

"'Based on a review of past successful cases in a 'variety of jurisdictions,' the memo said, the best odds of conviction come with pornography that 'includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior.' No word on the universe of other kinks that helps make porn a multibillion-dollar industry."

I don't know about any of you, maybe you're all too 01d and l4m3 to be internet-savvy enough to have seen it all, but I've been on the internet since I was 12 years old. Ok, there wasn't really an internet back then, but BBSes were very big. I have seen things that have absolutely scarred me forever. I have seen a chick lying on her back with her ass in the air, shitting on her own face. I have seen 2 women puke on each other and swap the puke back and forth, eating it and puking it again. I've seen women fuck horses, horses fuck men, men fuck dogs, and women fucking pigs. I've seen a guy pulling his asshole apart about 6 inches so you could actually look up his asshole. I've even seen stuff that would be considered "normal" porn that made me sick. That word "bukakke" comes to mind. I've seen all of this stuff BEFORE I was 18 WITHOUT searching for it.

Think about that. How fucked up is it that I've had this disgusting shit SHOVED DOWN MY THROAT FOR YEARS while I was still a minor? This article isn't talking about FBI agents raiding your house and taking your precious collection of lesbian pr0n. This article isn't even talking about raiding your house and taking your precious collection of bukkake-vomit videos. This article is talking about the government finally doing something about the proliferation of SICK SICK shit all over the internet that you absolutely cannot escape from.

I don't care if you have a fecal fetish. Neither does anyone else. You can order your shit-eating videos and watch them in your home all day long. I care about some sick fuck sending me a link to a site that says flowers.jpg and opening it and seeing a collage of a guy with a 6 inch asshole sucking a dog's cock while a women shits in another woman's mouth and I'm sitting there at work frantically reaching for alt+f4. That's the kind of crap being targetted and I fully support it.

Posted by: Eddie on September 21, 2005 12:55 AM

Eddie, there is only so much bullshit a person can take. Although spam has always been a problem, it's pretty obvious that your "forced" exposure to hard core porn fetishes are somewhat, if not mostly self-imposed. How in the world have you not been able to avoid that crap with all your savvy and experience on the Internet? You of all people would know NOT to open spam after falling for the first couple of pornograhic spam emails. It is kind of obvious to most Internet users. And if you don't have a spam filter after all this time on the net, you are a bigger idiot than even I give you credit for. By the way, good luck on your dog-fucking obsession.

Posted by: Randy M. on September 21, 2005 04:15 AM

"I don't know about any of you, maybe you're all too 01d and l4m3 to be internet-savvy enough to have seen it all, but I've been on the internet since I was 12 years old. "

Damn slow learner for a youngster, ain't you Eddie?

Posted by: Joe on September 21, 2005 07:26 AM

Eddie needs to quit opening emails from people he doesn't know or find a better class of friends.

Posted by: James Old Guy on September 21, 2005 09:38 AM

I don't understand what Eddie's problem is, after reading his post several times. I've been able to avoid all that stuff for years with no particular effort. I don't need the federal government to "protect" me at the expense of national security. Trained professional agents are a scarce and valuable resource. If you assign them to one task you can't assign them to another at the same time. I would rather be protected from suitcase nukes and suicide bombers than from dirty pictures. It's a matter of priorities. The proposed program, in my opinion, has a priority down with matress tag enforcement.

Posted by: Ernie G on September 21, 2005 10:18 AM

I guess it REALLY depends on what they are REALLY doing? Am I for this, I don't really know that much about it as I don't trust the MSM or the FBI. This is almost as bad as Hillary calling for a $75 MILLION study about how video games affect our youth! Money flushed in many toilets.

Posted by: Anastasia on September 21, 2005 10:49 AM

Gerry: The one slight problem with that idea is that Congress mandated that the FBI do this, and threw the money at them.

Separation of powers and all tells me that the President probably shouldn't tell them to not do what Congress told them to, barring an obvious Constiutional violation (which there isn't, here).

Posted by: Sigivald on September 21, 2005 03:13 PM

While I agree an intelligent adult should be able to avoid inadvertently viewing porn on the 'net, the same does not nesessarily hold true for children. Sure, we should supervise our children's internet use, but this is not always practical. Telling a child not to click an link sent from an unknown source does not mean the child will not click it anyway.

Filters both in the form of software and parents are not, nor will they every be, perfect. As a parent, I am indeed concerned about my daughter viewing hardcore porn. To those who argue that it actually does no harm, provide hard evidence to support your claim.

Posted by: Max on September 21, 2005 05:37 PM

Pornography is an instrument of oppression.

Posted by: Bob L. on September 21, 2005 06:17 PM

Oppression can be an instrument of pornography.

Posted by: Max on September 21, 2005 08:23 PM

Eddie, you are one sick little fuck.

I'm with you, A-Man. The fact that you like porn has nothing to do with the fact that you are a public menace. You know I mean that in the NICEST way.

Posted by: Larry on September 21, 2005 11:54 PM

Mozilla werks for me. :)
AND not opennin chit from folks I DON'T KNOW works just as well.

Posted by: Lil Toni on September 22, 2005 08:24 PM
Post a comment

*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.