Joke of the week: "Kids are so smart"
A stranger was seated next to a little girl on the airplane when the stranger turned to her and said, "Let's talk. I've heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger." The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to the stranger, "What would you like to talk about ?" '"Oh, I don't know," said the stranger. "How about nuclear power?" and he smiles. "OK, " she said. "That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first . . . A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?" The stranger, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea." To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don't know shit?" ____________________ My commentary. I'm not sure exactly where the joke originated, but considering the constructive style of scatological humor, I assume it originally appeared in Larry Flynt's anti-Neocon/Bush political fireball-cum-porn Hustler magazine. I especially love Hustler's regular feature "Asshole of the Month" lambasting bigots, extremist ideologues and hypocrites (usually Republican right in the overhwelming majority; the attack on smarmy, excruciatingly pompous "know-it-all" former CNN/MSNBC [infamous Crossfire episode with Jon Stewart who confronted Tucker by labeling him a "partisan hack"] host & current MSNBC senior campaign correspondent Tucker Carlson in Holiday 2007 issue a particular example. Wikipedia subsection on Hustler's political stance). The above statement do not mean I endorse pornography in any form. Banishment of pornography in the Middle East and Central Asia outside of Israel is probably for a noble moral cause, with the exception of proliferation of liquor and pornography in post-invasion Iraq.
What noble cause is served by banishing pornography?
Adults who choose to exhibit their bodies and get paid cash for that service are getting paid for a job, like so many other of us working stiffs.
Adults who choose to buy and view pornography are not committing any crime, at least not in freedom loving countries.
That is how it is and how it should be in a democracy, but that is not the case in theocracies.
Which one would you rather live in?
You are free to have calloused hands and mojo. LOL
(cuz the joke's on YOU)
The whole "consenting Adults" argument with regard to pornography is null because of the internet. Pornography has never been more widely available to kids.
And I,for one, don't think what is out on the internet freely and widely available is healthy for kids or adolescents.
But maybe that will be the Achilles heal of the internet that will be used as reason to pull it's plug. But that's just MHO
I asked a simple question of whether or not one would prefer to live in a democracy or theocracy and someone answered neither.
Since you choose neither, then do you prefer to live in a dictatorship?
For if you let others dictate what you can read or what you can view or how you can think, that is a dictatorship.
And wasn't WUFYS established, at least in part, to fight off repression of thought?
Your question was whether you'd rather live in porno/land=demonocracy or dicktator/land theocracy.
I said NEITHER; and now i'll tell you WHY:
THEY ARE BOTH TERRIBLE POLITICAL LIES;
democracy is an illusion=0,
theocracy to nothingness=0;
wo/man's delusion=666=0.
POLI = EDICT (unto others)
As for the joke.. LOL!!!
One sunny day in 2008, an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President George W. Bush."
The Marine replied, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer President and doesn't reside here." The old man said, "Okay," and walked away.
The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President George W. Bush".
The Marine again told the man, "Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Bush is no longer President and doesn't reside here." The man thanked him and again walked away . . .
The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President George W. Bush."
The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already several times that Mr. Bush is not the President anymore and doesn't reside here. Don't you understand?"
The old man answered, "Oh, I understand you fine, I just love hearing your answer!" The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow"
He never really was the president, because the people didn't really vote for him! (the majority anyways) He IS however a war-criminal illuminati scumbag who let 9/11 happen in order to give the zionists enough rope to hang themselves; whilst profiteering off the whole shitbang.
Just think of all the 'courageous' presidents who rattle the sabres, yet profiteer from OIL alone! Deal between devils that are fighting for control of satans workshop. the rottens are laughing at us all.
Nice joke brother!
Semper Phi
I would rather live in a democracy where freedom of speech, assembly and redressing grievance are not only permitted but encouraged as long as there is responsibility to exercise free speech without engaging in violent acts (inciting riots) and unlawful conducts (child pornography in photographic and videographic form is not protected free speech as declared by a judge a long ago).
Theocracy, on the other hand, may discourage these basic rights. Saudi Arabia and Iran are obvious examples. I cannot endorse overthrowing the current monarch and cleric governments, respectively, because I'm naive to understand the reason for the institution of the government models in theocratic dictatorships.
Why did I say "noble moral cause"? To clarify, I did not opine that there should be a noble moral cause in the Middle East and Central Asia where Moslem culture and religion prevail, but rather the obligation in national self-rule based on the model of Islamic morals, however backward it might seem (i.e. Sharia law). Cultural heritage is also a factor.
Indeed, many in the Arabic and Persian states perceive the negative influence of the Jews behind pornographic productions on the Internet and in magazine & video that conspire to subvert and undermine "White, Christian" moral values in U.S., U.K., Canada, France, Germany, et cetera. I subscribe to this view as fact because I see countless Jews' connection to pornography as editors, distributors, producers and even actors. Do "Al Goldstein" ring a bell? (avowed atheist editor and publisher of the now-defunct Screw magazine that, during its peak in the 70's and 80's, made him a millionaire; "impoverished as a homeless man" today)
Even Alan Dershowitz, the nefarious Zionist, defended adult pornography as protected free speech, with his distinct Jewish heritage lent to show that amoral Jews prefer "concerned effort" of subversion in order to "pervert" the values by encouraging the frequency of indulging in vice (interpreted as fornication in premarital sexual relations, prostitution and patronizing strip clubs) and, in white supremacists' view, Anglo-Saxon Caucasians' mixing with the black/hispanic/inferior race in interracial sexual contact and marriage.
In conjunction with Islamic religious values in law and order, the theocratic states ban liquor and pornography as damaging to morals. The underground black market do exist, even in Iran.
A while ago this year, I happened upon an innocent, non-descript link composed of Arabic or Farsi characters in Digg "new" list of social bookmark postings of Apple computers and was exposed to the unbelievably filthy gallery of pornography, including bestiality and what appear to be Iranian/Arabic women engaging in sex acts, with their burkas worn and faces of both genders blacked out. I reported the link as violation of Blogger's policy and clicked "Bury" and reported the link to Digg admin. That same link to the explicit Blogger site in Arabic or Farsi language appeared to be spam as it re-appears repeatedly, off-topic, in Digg topics.
This exposure reinforced my understanding why Islamic theocratic states are strict with enforcing the law in suppressing the proliferation of pornography, with capital punishment imposed in some cases for contravening the rule of law in proper conduct. I don't condone death penalty merely for producing pornography, but I understood the very nature of pornography being particularly odious to the moral sensibilities as well as the nationalistic self-interests in protecting its citizen majority from "evil and immoral" influences.
Devout Christians (evangelical, conservative Protestant & Catholic, etc) and Mormons share the view opposing pornography, as do Feminists, for obvious reason of defending family values, public morals and even 'self-respect in gender warfare' (feminists). Mainstream Mormon Church is an example that have consistently stood to denounce pornography, in literally every semi-annual conference speeches, and I don't doubt that Mormon church would like to take over U.S. government covertly by employment and election & impose the theocracy if it can be possible. Its founder Joseph Smith wanted such an opportunity to found an unique, encompassing American theocracy when he briefly ran for President only to face universal hostility and poor odds of being elect.
I admire Larry Flynt, despite his reputation as "a smut peddler who cares", for his stand against theocratic forces (Jerry Falwell, etc) with brutish columns as the firebrand of free speech. He's one of the reasons the First Amendment can be staunchly asserted to express the view, no matter how potent and repugnant, as long as it is catered to mature audience.
Extreme pornography producer and actor Max Hardcore, among many others in the adult industry, on the other hand, "abuse" First Amendment to showcase what they are capable of that rival European pornography in extreme and degrading sexual acts bordering on obscenity that may lack "serious scientific, literacy, social and political merits" accorded by the infamous "Miller test" trial judgment in the mid-late 60's.
I consider 18th century rogue French author/rebel Marquis de Sade's explicit novels, while repugant and horrific in stories and imagination, one of the earliest examples of bringing the matter and right of free speech to the forefront. Hence "acceptable" on the basis of literacy, political and social merit.
Because I'm a libertarian, I oppose censorship in any form as long as it conforms to the current just law prohibiting illicit images like child porn, bestiality, "body modification", coprophilia and other "repulsive" extremities. Germany, Netherlands and Japan do produce some of the above except the obviously illegal first one, amazingly enough.
Sharia - or half of it - does not come from the Quran. Male scholars and such from that time actually put very primitive laws in Sharia BEFORE there was Islam. Muhammed was not around anymore when Sharia was put together. I believe he would not have agreed with it because he told the people "Do Not Write After Me".
Stoning is not what God / the Quran says - for any kind of punishment.
Notice also that many Muslim states have different types of Sharia. WHY? Should it not be constistent like the Quran? It definitely should.
STONERS will suffer their actions and those that wrote these man-made rules will suffer also.
When you mention someone getting stoned, didn't think you were referring to the Bob Dylan song.
If someone is going to be executed, then the actual execution should be carried out in a humane way, if that's possible.
The punishment is losing one's life and shouldn't be the punishment itself.
As for child pornography, that is a vile and despicable trade that is outlawed and should be punished severly.
What i don't care for are self-serving politican who like to go around, passing new laws, saying they are for the "protection" of children.
Whenver they say that phrase, i make it a point to try and find out just what in the hell it is they are wanting to make into law, since more often than not, they are using kid's as a facade to pass onereous laws that impinge on our freedoms and give more power to D.C.