Forum:FARSide

Poor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It turns out, he's not as popular as he'd hoped. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "77 percent of rural Caucasian voters...would much rather go to a baseball game or have a beer with Ahmadinejad...than spend time with Obama." This, my dear non-American friends, is a testament as to why the First Amendment is so precious to us Americans. This is a teachable moment to Iranians, and those in the international community, who think a guarantee of free speech is excessive. nobsCorporations are people, too 17:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ..and the Republican Party, if elected, will do everything to ensure that all speech is free, right, Rob? JubalHarshaw (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * hmm, you really wanna have this discussion? or is it gonna be trolltopped once you start getting your ass whupped? You do realize the distinction between "Free speech" and "Free expression", don't you? nobsCorporations are people, too 18:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * About that link JubalHarshaw posted....That'll really concern you, won't it, Rob? ;) -- Andy not Schlafly 18:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Something, something, Obama, something, something, socialism, something, something, praying with prostitutes. Генгис silverbrain.png 18:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeezus Gawd. You do realize the Supreme Court has ruled nude dancing is free speech? nobsCorporations are people, too 19:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Flying Spaghetti Monster help us if Rob ever decides to exercise his freedom of speech through that medium rather than by trolling in here. Vulpius (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Jubal, don't fumble the football before you cross the goal line. Let's get this straight: As an Obama supporter and Democrat, are you personally pro-pornography, or are you articulating the values and attitudes of the entire Democratic Party? nobsCorporations are people, too 12:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Stopped reading about 21 words in, as I am not a Democrat and not an Obama supporter. I'm wondering why you would assume I was. JubalHarshaw (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are attempting to derail; how are "Republicans" (not Romney aides, as your source states) wanting to violate Constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights? how would enforcement of U.S. Postal Regulations, local anti-prostitution laws, or anti-child porno laws a violation of free speech? Is it the position of Democrats & Obama supports, the promotion of pornography under the guise of "free speech", as you have alluded to? nobsCorporations are people, too 16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess you really want to ignore the fact that your political party has, for this election, desperately tried to tighten voter eligibility laws in an effort to silence the votes (Which are the free speech, perhaps the most important free speech in politics!) of hundreds of elder, minority, student, and legal immigrant citizens. All based in illusory excuses of voter fraud. The Republican party is all for free speech... when that speech agrees with them, and the corporations that are feeding them talking points.±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR critical thinking is the key to success! 16:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where "prostitution" fits into the issue, as that word does not appear in the article. Nor does "child porn." What does appear in the article is that the Republican candidate for president "as promised that if elected president he would require every new computer be sold with a porn filter." IE, a defacto limit on certain kinds of speech, broadly put. Whether I think that's a good idea or not is a separate question, but it seems pretty clear that Romney and parts of his party have their own limitations on what the notion of "free speech" should encompass. JubalHarshaw (talk) 16:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Specific responses: it was Clinton who asked for the V-chip, and this is an extension. (1) Not listening to another's free speech is not violating their free speech rights. (2) Child porn is porn, this should be indisputable. (3) Payment for to an individual to perform a sex act (like performing on film) in most localities is prostitution. So, concerns exist about manufacturing (prostitution) & distribution (either Postal Service regulations, where the Government has direct control or internet, governed under the Internet Decency Act). Is it your claim Obama advocate's are pro-pornography, while Romney and Romney aides are anti-free speech? Please be specific in your remarks. nobsCorporations are people, too 18:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Literally, 'pornography' is writing about prostitutes. Генгис 18:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No that is not my claim. My claim is stated clearly above. To quote David Byrne, "say something once, why say it again?" JubalHarshaw (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so we're not at a gotcha moment yet. Porno consists of three aspects, production, distribution, and consumption. You're argument is from a consumer aspect. But this issue has been decided more than 10 years ago. All televisions sold in the US (from whatever manufacturer, foreign or domestic) must include a V-chip. This is not censorship. Exercising your right of choice to not view something is not censorship, nor violating anyone's free speech. By your argument, edit filers installed in Rationalwiki is censorship and a free speech violation -- and not even mandated by government.  nobsCorporations are people, too 18:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "You're (sic) argument is from a consumer aspect." I have made no argument about pornography, so I stopped reading your post at that point. Sorry. JubalHarshaw (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Slam dunk. We got your message loud and clear: Romney wants to violate free speech rights while a vote for Obama will protect a persons sacred right to view pornography, and pornographers rights to continue production, and distributors rights to continue corrupting peoples minds. Gotcha loud and clear. nobsCorporations are people, too 18:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What slam dunk? I said nothing about Obama. In fact, I even stated clearly that I was not on Obama supporter, and I made no claims about his policies on the issue. Nor did I make a claim about the effect of pornography on peoples' minds. Please don't put words in my mouth. JubalHarshaw (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You made the false claim "the Republican Party, if elected...", and linked to a Romney aide's statement. Romney could be elected without the Republican Party controlling the law making apparatus. So your first claim was entirely bogus. Someone then produced a Romney quote. But the implication remained -- a vote for Romney and/or a Republican congressional candidate threatened (1) a persons right to view pornography (2) porno producers ability to seduce young women with cash for sex, and (3) porno distributors ability to feed porno into schools, homes, etc. You have been shown to be unequivocally in error in all your assertions. Do you still wish to stand by the general assertion that the Democratic Party, and President Obama himself, are defenders of pornography? Either admit your error, or allow your false assertions to stand. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

" Do you still wish to stand by the general assertion that the Democratic Party, and President Obama himself, are defenders of pornography?." please show me where I made that assertion, or indicated that I agreed with such an assertion. JubalHarshaw (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is in you original first and false statement, that if the Republican Party (and/or Romney) were to be elected, free speech and pornography would be threatened. The status quo under Obama, together with the the societal ills of pornography, turning women to whores, porno viewers minds into mush, and school children into porno consumers is preferable. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Romney made a promise about porn filters in new computers sold in the US. That is not a false statement. As for the rest of your post, that may be your opinion. At no point did I make any claims on the issue. I have not stood by those assertions, nor have I made critiques of them. JubalHarshaw (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you made the claim, "the Republican Party, if elected". The US is not a parliamentary system. You tried to cover your ass claiming Romney wants to expand the V-chip to computers, which does not violate free speech. You've never clarified how existing law, allowing people to not view porno if they so choose, violates free speech rights. Nor your original false assertion the Republican Party, and Mitt Romney want to violate free speech rights. It seems you stand by the assertion a vote for Obama, and by extension, the Democratic Party, is a vote to defend pornography. nobsCorporations are people, too 19:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, so I'll modify my original claim: "The man running for president on the Republican ticket, has promised, if elected, to force computer manufacturers to build their products in such a way as make it easier to limit the distribution of particular types of content." As for what a vote for Obama and the Democratic Party means in this context, like I said, I won't be voting for Obama, and I haven't seen him or the party make any proposals on the issue, so I'm not sure how that's relevant. JubalHarshaw (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That again, is pure bullshit. The man running for president on the Republican ticket promised nothing of the sort. The United States is not a dictatorship. The Executive can not force anyone to do anything (except actions within the Executive Branch by Executive Order). The only promise he can make is propose legislation to the lawmaking body. Every school child knows this, except you. You really ought not comment on things you do not know anything about, like United States politics and elections. Demagogues such as yourself are easy to spot. nobsCorporations are people, too 20:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should direct your withering scorn on Mr. Romney, who made the promise in question. I'm merely reporting what the man said. JubalHarshaw (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this started as a discussion on free speech. You converted into an unfounded attack the Republican party. When called upon it, you turned it into an attack on Romney. When called on more bullshit, you claimed laws protecting a persons right to not view porno violated free speech. When called on that, you claimed Romney wanted to ban porno and censor free speech. Your persistence only leads to the conclusion you think Obama & the Democrats want to protect pornography. I've done you a favor, by demonstrating how ignorant you are of US politics and the political process, is the only explanation for acting as the fool you are. nobsCorporations are people, too 20:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

66.183.41.215 (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. For the nth time, I never said anything about the Democrats. 2. I started with an offhand joke comment about the Republicans/their candidate that any grown-up would never have taken so seriously; I made no real claims beyond that. It was all you who picked up the ball and ran with it after that. 3. I can just imagine you pounding your keyboard in abject frustration, blood pressure creeping up steadily. Trolling you is a lot of fun. JubalHarshaw (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fuck ya. You lost this argument, as everyone can see. And no army of trolls can hide it. I'm out, over and done, nuffsaid.  nobsCorporations are people, too 20:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I mean, I suppose, except for the fact that, reading this over, it appears you were largely arguing with yourself after misreading a little jab. I mean, seriously, show me one diff link after my first post in this thread where I make any sort of claim or argument. JubalHarshaw (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)