Current or modern politics in the United States

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The conservatives have certainly talked about going after “obscenity” - and content is banned in lots of places, but never in every place.

I suspect an ever growing market for VPNs and the like, given that this content is almost exclusively digital at this point, it would be a remarkably difficult task to suppress it.

There have been moves against online escort ads —Craigslist, now Backpage- but it’s hard to see how it goes much beyond that.

Net neutrality is history. Have you noticed how successful China and other nations are at controlling what is available to their citizens and blocking access to disliked content? I grew up in the 1950s. You pervs aren't going to like the TWO (Trump World Order.)

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Net neutrality is history. Have you noticed how successful China and other nations are at controlling what is available to their citizens and blocking access to disliked content? I grew up in the 1950s. You pervs aren't going to like the TWO (Trump World Order.)

In that case, we'd better get it while we can. Time to buy some more external drives.

[LadyLuck]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

The court was right in Roe vs. Wade, but the legal argument in the majority opinion was misguided.

I don't want to see Roe overturned. As barbaric as abortion may be, legal abortion is far more preferable to illegal abortion. Going back to those days is not the answer. Sadly, it's a bit of a Pandora's Box. I just tossed that example out since Scoundrel kept banging that singular Dred Scott drum as evidence that SCOTUS is not viable.

By the way, are any right-to-lifers on board with my plan to castrate men who abandon their families or fail to provide child support?

Count me in. I'll support that. That would address several of society's woes in one fell swoop. Or... applying your same logic - let's keep abortion legal and forcibly sterilize those who use it so they don't become repeat customers? If you are serious about the castration angle surely you cannot oppose my suggestion?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

I don't want to see Roe overturned.

Well, I don't think its going to come down to what you or I want. The irony is that this might be a case of "the dog that caught the car" -- Republicans have made their hay for a generation pounding the drum for something that they couldn't actually get.

What if they do get it?

It might well energize women around this single issue. Considering how many ninnies deserted HRC for Jill Stein, or just stayed home because HRC was mean to Bernie-- it may b that I'm too eager to see a silver lining, but I'd like to think that a real assault on people's rights in a way that they could feel-- that might make them think a little more clearly.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

I don't want to see Roe overturned. As barbaric as abortion may be, legal abortion is far more preferable to illegal abortion. Going back to those days is not the answer. Sadly, it's a bit of a Pandora's Box. I just tossed that example out since Scoundrel kept banging that singular Dred Scott drum as evidence that SCOTUS is not viable.

Count me in. I'll support that. That would address several of society's woes in one fell swoop. Or... applying your same logic - let's keep abortion legal and forcibly sterilize those who use it so they don't become repeat customers? If you are serious about the castration angle surely you cannot oppose my suggestion?

We don't need Dred Scott now that we have Citizens United. I urge you guys jumping for joy at the prospect of Trump appointing more justices to read some of Clarence Thomas' opinions.

here is a post I made today after reading about recent events in Iowa.

http://vintage-erotica-forum.com/sho...&postcount=232

I haven't kept up with the ins and outs of the abortion question. It does not directly affect me other than the women in my family have made it clear that we are pro-choice. It does not pay to cross the descendants of the pioneer women that settled this country. One of my mom's contemporaries in the extended family died of a botched abortion. So, that is part of the family lore.

Reading the court decision and summary of evidence made me realize how much the pro-life campaign is an attack on poor women and women of color in particular. After reading more, not only am I on board with the castrations, but urge that we beat the abusers with baseball bats, too.

I am reluctant to punish women further for what is usually an agonizing decision in a desperate life In the few cases where we can demonstrate a callous and reckless disregard for normal precaution, sure. But my feeling is that we are talking about a tiny subset of women.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

Reading the court decision and summary of evidence made me realize how much the pro-life campaign is an attack on poor women and women of color in particular.

I interpret it somewhat differently. The dynamic you note is there-- but its something else too. Its a natalist, anti-feminist, demographic agenda.

Its notable that with women's liberation, birthrates fell. This happened in the US and in Europe; but the more religious and sexist religious denominations had less of a fall. For a long time, the US was the only "white" country with any white population growth (that's over)

Seen as a purely demographic strategy, the anti-abortion (and anti-family planning) strategy wants white women to have five kids.

Note one of the names on Trump's list for SCOTUS, Amy Coney Barrett-- she's "the complete package", a pretty blonde, religious nut (puts her religion above the Constitution) with seven children.

Its in the wombs of such women that the battle for the ethno-demographic future will be won. Note that among Jews, giant families are the norm for the more extreme types. Liberals have zero, one or maybe two kids . . . its the settlers and yeshiva crowd who have six; that's changing Israel, and its changing the US.

I think that's the story, even if its not always explicitly understood that way.

An early feminist, Germaine de Stael, once asked Napoleon what kind of woman he admired most . . . Nap's reply "the one that bears me the most soldiers"

Or, more recently, babies were referred to as "ein liebesgeschenk fur den Fuhrer"

There's a long history behind "your womb is a resource of the State, its not yours"

[movieman88]

Originally Posted by Brian249x

By the way, are any right-to-lifers on board with my plan to castrate men who abandon their families or fail to provide child support?

No because that is deranged beyond belief. It's no different then Britain castrating men for being gay. No government has the right to mutilate or permanately damage it's citizens bodies as a form of "justice", that goes a thousand light years beyond cruel & unusual punishment.

What if the man leaves his family because he himself genuinely believes he is incapable of competent parenting?
What if the wife is abusive (to him not the kid) & he can't take it anymore for his own mental wellbeing?
What if the child has behavioral problems he has no understanding of how to interact with/tolerate or assist against?
What if he has no way of making enough money to support himself and pay child support at the same time?
There is thousands of variables involved and even judging it on a case to case basis leaves tons of men open to having a state sanctioned atrocity committed against them because the fucker who examined their case was slightly bias.

[bowlinggreen]

Originally Posted by movieman88

No because that is deranged beyond belief. It's no different then Britain castrating men for being gay. No government has the right to mutilate or permanately damage it's citizens bodies as a form of "justice", that goes a thousand light years beyond cruel & unusual punishment.

What if the man leaves his family because he himself genuinely believes he is incapable of competent parenting?
What if the wife is abusive (to him not the kid) & he can't take it anymore for his own mental wellbeing?
What if the child has behavioral problems he has no understanding of how to interact with/tolerate or assist against?
What if he has no way of making enough money to support himself and pay child support at the same time?
There is thousands of variables involved and even judging it on a case to case basis leaves tons of men open to having a state sanctioned atrocity committed against them because the fucker who examined their case was slightly bias.

I dunno, I think Brian has a valid argument.

Some of your points are valid, but if I had a teenage daughter, and some worthless spotty boy put a baby in her belly, and then scampered off to another state and changed his name to escape responsibility, I would personally want his balls. I'd certainly want the baby aborted, as I wouldn't want his stray dog genes carrying on my genetic line.

If you can't rear a a child for whatever reason, then don't fuck, at least not without good birth control.

You look around on the streets these days, and wonder why men aren't men like their grandfathers and great-grandfathers were, it's because irresponsible people have been dropping worthless spawn all over the place and then not raising them right for a long time. We are less than we used to be, and that is a simple fact.

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by movieman88

No because that is deranged beyond belief. It's no different then Britain castrating men for being gay. No government has the right to mutilate or permanately damage it's citizens bodies as a form of "justice", that goes a thousand light years beyond cruel & unusual punishment.

What if the man leaves his family because he himself genuinely believes he is incapable of competent parenting?
What if the wife is abusive (to him not the kid) & he can't take it anymore for his own mental wellbeing?
What if the child has behavioral problems he has no understanding of how to interact with/tolerate or assist against?
What if he has no way of making enough money to support himself and pay child support at the same time?
There is thousands of variables involved and even judging it on a case to case basis leaves tons of men open to having a state sanctioned atrocity committed against them because the fucker who examined their case was slightly bias.

I am not really serious here, but you should be aware that there is a set of African American men that considers it sport to impregnate young African American girls. If these men stay in communication at all with these young unwed mothers, it is to drop by to beat them up and steal the proceeds of the welfare check intended to support the child. These young women go to heroic lengths to raise their families.

In the Anglo community, you have a bunch of men, too, who abandon families and evade support and parenting responsibilities. Thus, you have many boys raised by their mommas who do not have the skills to turn them into responsible men. My poor nieces are now dealing with an ocean of mommas boys with their sense of entitlement. My nieces want stand up guys who will make responsible partners.

It makes a real difference to grow up in a house with a man who will model a strong work ethic, do chores and handiwork, and maybe is a military veteran. Real men don't make excuses. They find a way to honor their commitments.

By the way, governments absolutely do have the right to do whatever is necessary to create and maintain a healthy society. The citizens ultimately decide what that looks like.

[Roubignol]

Originally Posted by bowlinggreen

I dunno, I think Brian has a valid argument.

Some of your points are valid, but if I had a teenage daughter, and some worthless spotty boy put a baby in her belly, and then scampered off to another state and changed his name to escape responsibility, I would personally want his balls. I'd certainly want the baby aborted, as I wouldn't want his stray dog genes carrying on my genetic line.

If you can't rear a a child for whatever reason, then don't fuck, at least not without good birth control.

You look around on the streets these days, and wonder why men aren't men like their grandfathers and great-grandfathers were, it's because irresponsible people have been dropping worthless spawn all over the place and then not raising them right for a long time. We are less than we used to be, and that is a simple fact.

Now that's the fault of the boyfriend. Typical old fashion father behaviour.

Are there no contraceptive pills for your daughters in the USA?

Today, apart in case of rape, having a child is ultimately the total responsability of the female gender and her parents.

How many time women didn't take the pill to trap their boyfriends?
How many time I've watched talk-shows in the past, in which the mother said: "I stopped the pills, because I wanted to make him a gift!"
- "Did your boyfriend know that you stopped the pills?"
- "No.... but I was so sure that he wanted a child."
- "Did you discuss with him."
- "Yes. He didn't want, but you know, I thought that when seeing his newborn child, he would change his mind."

Even one of my cousins, who is 20 years older than I am, was trapped like this.

Wake up guys. Your daughters are not angels and if they are, you failed to properly educate them.