Porn Union? (page 4)

Author	Post
Sheldon Member 263 Posts 9/04	Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 8:13AM Raoul Duke wrote: Despite some word twisting by Sheldon, I've never denied the right of workers to organize and to strike, nor have I denied that labor keeps a check on some of the worst tendencies of capital. Click to expand And where did I claim that you did deny them that as a rule? Edited by - Sheldon on 3/9/2007 8:55:25 AM [Link]
Sheldon Member 263 Posts 9/04	Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 8:27AM Raoul Duke wrote: There's that paranoia again, looking for hidden agendas. Sheldon, your arguement is preposterous. Wheter PATCO got fired or resigned en masse, Reagan would have done the same thing: replaced them with Military Controllers until new ones could be trained. Presidents have brought in the military during strikes since Grover Cleveland. Click to expand Well, if Reagan knew he had the option to bring in Military Controllers (who, I assume, were up to the job) to ensure that air traffic would continue safely, then how was public safety or the global economy endangered by the PATCO strikers? Someone who knows he has the situation well in hand but carps about "public safety" being endangered is not bargaining in good faith. BTW, if you think that my saying that next to you, "Ann Coulter is beginning to look like a Trotskyist" is a personal insult, then what is one to make of "paranoia" and "conspiracy theorist", the epithets you've been hurling at me ever since I first posted on this thread? You started it, but I give as good as I get. ------------------------------------------------- A note to all those here who are evincing some fondness for Daniel Ortega: In order to get elected last year, Ortega made a deal with the Catholic Church to outlaw abortion. Unfortunately for women in Nicaragua, he kept his word, giving Nicaragua the most repressive anti-reproductive rights laws in the entire hemisphere. Ortega's stepdaughter, Voilamerica, came forward years ago with a detailed account of how he molested her when she was growing up. Did the priests there see in him a kindred spirit? Edited by - Sheldon on 3/9/2007 8:59:16 AM [Link]
Sheldon Member 263 Posts 9/04	Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 9:11AM TonyC wrote: Don't waste any more of your energy on Sheldon. "Film critic for AVN" was the high point of his career, and that was nearly a decade ago. Click to expand How would you know that to be the high point of my career? Have you been tracking my career, assessing the highs and lows, and coming up with some sort of statistical assessment? If so, I guess I should feel flattered that you think me worthy of such an inquiry. I waive confidentiality and ask that you share your detailed findings with the rest of us. Do tell, Brother Tony, do tell... [Link]
the unknown pervert Deactivated User I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06	Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 9:50AM Sheldon wrote: [ Supporting gay rights is not "p.r." unless you think civil rights don't matter much. It's not easy for any Venezuelan President to go up against the powerful Catholic Church. Click to expand And Chavez has spent the last two years trying to give Castro the tongue. Castro has regularly thrown homosexuals in prison for no other reason other than sexual orientation. How can someone that looks up to Castro so much be as pro-gay rights as you believe? Chavez knows by giving this lip service he makes points with the international community, particularly the U.N. Holding a parade does not mean equality under or protection from the law. [Link]

duffy Deactivated User 208 Posts 4/06	Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 10:45AM This thread proves what many have always believed about pseudo-intellectuals: what they do in their spare time! [Link]
Sheldon Member 263 Posts 9/04	Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 11:38AM Raoul Duke wrote: I post here because I enjoy the debate with Portnoy, Hardware and Comstock. The way you post, the anger, the vehemence, the vitriol, the personal attacks, the obsession and paranoia all make it clear that your world would collapse outside this forum. Click to expand That's because, unlike them, I choose not to ignore your bullying rhetoric but tackle it head on. Your style is more Rush Limbaugh than Ted Kennedy. And while you are correct that the US had 'enabling" legislation that allowed for the admission of States (dating back to 1802, a lot earlier than Alaska and Hawaii,) these had nothing to do with the German Enabling Act of 1933 (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich or "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the State".) Click to expand You conveniently forget that you made a huge deal out of the fact that Chavez used the same NAME for his legislation as Hitler used for his; implying some deeper kinship between the two. I pointed out that other countries have had legislation with the same NAME, countries whose democratic credentials are currently not in dispute. Instead of conceding the point, you switch gears and stress CONTENT, pretending that's what you were posting all along. This is like when you switched gears from "public safety" to "convenience" on PATCO. Well, at least you're consistent on something. Perhaps there's hope for you yet. Click to expand Both subsequently attained power through very legal, very Democratic and Very Constitutional means. Click to expand Hitler never won a democratic election in the Weimar Republic. He was appointed (not elected) by Chancellor Von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933. Shortly after, he had the Reichstag (Parliament) burned. The new Parliament consisted solely of Nazi supporters, who consolidated his hold on power. "Very Democratic"? I suppose that's your sense of humor. In contrast, Hugo Chavez has actually won legitimate elections, starting in December 1998. The results of subsequent national elections and recall referenda were verified by a host on international observers, including the Carter Center. That Jimmy Carter would rise above his antipathy to Chavez's ideology and call the vote honestly surprised me, given his past kinship with right-wing dictators. Both had compliant rubberstamp parliaments pass "enabling acts" granting them the ability to Rule by Decree. Click to expand In the case of Nazi Germany, it was a 100% Nazi parliament, installed by a dictatorship. The Venezuelan Parliament's decisions have legitimacy, since each Parliamentarian was democratically elected. That Parliament is also multi-party; there are elected officials from parties who had supported the coup AGAINST Chavez years ago. Both used that power to expand their armed forces, especially the Air Forces. Click to expand One to launch a world war, the other to defend against a US-backed invasion. The US has never denied its support of the 2002 coup against Chavez. Both used their power to begin campaigns against their political enemies, beginning with removing them from state-run enterprises, the civil service, utilities, schools and the like. Click to expand ..except that Hitler removed anyone he perceived to be his enemy directly into camps like Dachau, the first Nazi concentration camp. Chavez has fired people legally, in the context of a democracy, and they all still live at home. To the extent that these people supported a violent coup against him, they got off easy. The politics of the coup plotters and supporters are much closer to Hitler. BTW, Chavez publicly apologized for his coup attempt. Hitler never apologized for the putsch of 1923, and Chavez's enemnies are only sorry that they did not succeed, a 'sorry' that you share, perhaps? And to think that the camps aren't coming to Venezuela is the height of naivetee. Click to expand Well, Chavez was elected in 1998. It's 2007, and still no concentration camps in Venezuela. What's taking him so long? Why is he feting gay people, instead of rounding them up like Castro, or sending them to death camps like Hitler? You also imply in another post that everyone at Gitmo is a foreign terrorist Click to expand They ain't Girl Scouts, Shelly, and they're not here to sell you a cookie. Click to expand So if they're not Girl Scouts, then they must be terrorists. You know this how? From Bush? Cheney? Or any other of those trustworthy sources that brought us Abu Ghraib? Actually, I'm surprised that, as a New Yorker, you'd actually be defending the terrorists. Click to expand I didn't realize that defending the terrorists including pointing out the possibility that many of the Gitmo prisoners are neither terrorists or sympathizers in the first place. Is indiscrimate rounding up the "one" issue where you agree with Bush? Well, here's another surprise for you: I support the right of accused Nazi war crimnals to receive a fair trial even though my grandparents were all murdered by the Nazis. I applauded Israel for ensuring that Adolf Eichmann had solid legal representation before he was convicted and executed. But, applying your logic, I'm defending mass murderers. Oh, wait, that's right. You're not a real New Yorker. You didn't live through 9/11 like those of us who actually live in the city. You live in the suburbs, with a wife and two kids, probably a dog, and a nice house on a leafy, tree-lined cul-de-sac. Click to expand Anyone who lives in New York State is a real New Yorker. At the time of 9/11. I was working in mid-town Manhattan and living in Nassau County at the time, and still am. No cul-de-sac, no dog. But what do you care about the facts? This shows how you just make stuff up as you go along. All the more reason to be skeptical about your stated credentials. Nice enough, I suppose. But it somehow doesn't fit the picture of the dedicated, militant socialist. Click to expand I didn't realize being a socialist meant taking a vow of poverty. Karl Marx's partner, Friedrich Engels, was a factory owner who lived 'nicely' and who financed much of Marx's work. Another stretch much bigger than a Liberal Democrat who agrees with Reagan on one solitary issue. Click to expand Some 'solitary' issues are more equal than others. PATCO had nothing to do with Iran-Contra and you know it. There's no relation, correlation or interrelation between the two. Click to expand You can say that until you're blue in the face, and it will still be just as (un)convincing. Those actions and just about everything in between was part of a campaign (not a conspiracy) to undo social progress and increase the privileges of the well-to-do at the expense of those less fortunate. The fact that Reagan kicked off his election campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the birthplace of the KKK, was not a coincidence. Moreover, in law, there's a presumption that a person (or a President, but not so much any more) will obey the law, and that to break the law is abbarant behaviour. Accordingly, it follows that we should not be surprised that Reagan followed the law (PATCO), but rather that he broke it (Iran-Contra.) Your suggestion that Reagan did not have to follow the law in 1981 because he subsequently broke it in Iran-Contra is therefore without merit Click to expand I did not suggest that he isn't legally bound to follow the law, but rather, that given his by-now-established predilection for breaking the law both before AND after the PATCO strike, his criteria for choosing to obey the law was always highly selective, and followed a pattern of service to the rich and the religious far Right, not to his country. Therefore, given Reagan's outlaw tendencies, shock and awe are definitely in order when he chose to obey the law. When he did obey the law, it wasn't because he HAD to, but because he WANTED to. Lets set aside for a moment the fact that socialism is an inherently overly idealistic philosophy. Click to expand No, it is not a fact. That is your opinion. As you can see, I was referring to your erroneous statement that I couldn't support Rev. Jackson and still oppose the PATCO strike, your implied position that one cannot vote for a candidate unless one agrees with that candidate on 100% of the issues... Click to expand Your increasingly hysterical tone about "public safety" suggested that where someone stands on that issue is the deciding factor. Given that, my inference was sound. Edited by - Sheldon on 3/9/2007 11:46:52 AM [Link]
Sheldon Member 263 Posts 9/04	Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 12:11PM Raoul Duke wrote: Outside of Morales and correa, who are already within Chavez's orbit, no one else is chomping at the bit to join him. Not Kirchner, not Batchelet, not any of them. Click to expand On the contrary, Kirchner has been a major satellite in Chavez's "orbit" for years. Recently, Venezuela paid off the entire balance of Argentina's debt to the International Monetary Fund. Edited by - Sheldon on 3/9/2007 12:11:56 PM [Link]
Sheldon Member 263 Posts 9/04	Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 12:24PM The Unnkown Pervert posted: And Chavez has spent the last two years trying to give Castro the tongue. Castro has regularly thrown homosexuals in prison for no other reason other than sexual orientation. How can someone that looks up to Castro so much be as pro-gay rights as you believe? Chavez knows by giving this lip service he makes points with the international community, particularly the U.N. Holding a parade does not mean equality under or protection from the law. Click to expand Holding a parade with his open support is a huge step against homophobia, because most people look up to the President, especially in Venezuela, where Catholic-based and "machismo"-based homophobia have made life perilous for non-heterosexuals. There's no way Bush and Cheney would declare "National Gay Pride Day" here, because they know what a historic blow against homophobia that would be. Gestures like that are just as important as some legislation. If Chavez is just doing this to curry favor with the UN, then why hasn't his 'tongue-mate' Castro done that as well? Chavez is not the only one who admires Castro for resisting the blockade and speaking out against US foreign policy. Kirchner and the other leftist South American leaders also are friendly with Castro, while acknowledging their differences over how they 'run their own houses' in a cordial manner. By your 'logic', Michelle Bachelet of Chile is just posing as a feminist to curry favor with the UN. Here is one link from Venezuelanalysis, reprinting an article from Green Leaf Weekly that interviewed gay rights activists there: Sexual Revolution in Venezuela Highlight 1: Marcel Quintana, the president of Consultants for Education and Health Venezuela (ASES), an HIV care group, stated, "“Only three countries in Latin America provide free HIV drugs — Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina. We fought to have HIV drugs distributed for free before [the 1998 election of Venezuelan President Hugo] Chavez. It was a hard fight, but we won universal access a short time before Chavez was elected. When elected, Chavez advanced — rapidly — the program of universal access. There are five hospitals, broken up into every region in the country, that offer drugs. Alongside this drug distribution program the hospitals have infectious disease units. We have these five points of control because of the black market. Hospital Vargas has a one-year-old infectious disease unit, which is just great — the best in the country.” Highlight 2: According to gay activist Ricardo Hung, "The history of what we have been able to achieve in the movement is clearly linked with the Chavez government. The first Gay Pride march took place under the Chavez government six years ago. We have never, ever seen this kind of devotion, open-minded activities and behaviour in a government. The government has really promoted diversity and is based on the integration of all the alienated branches of society. Hugo Chavez is promoting this. “Last year, the attorney-general’s office passed an act that created a division called the Department for Information to the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community. Every person in Caracas can go to that office and receive counselling to see if their issues can be dealt with. This is a big step because now GLBT issues are part of the government [agenda]. “Our movement has grown with this support. Six years ago our first Gay Pride parade took place and was 100 people. Last year it was almost 20,000. Permission is very easily obtained. We have the support of the police during the parade, which has been great. The Caracas mayor gives us the sound system for free. Now there is an amendment to the constitution [proposed] in order to promote same-sex marriage.” Edited by - Sheldon on 3/9/2007 1:24:08 PM [Link]
duffy Deactivated User 208 Posts 4/06	Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 7:00PM Sheldon wrote: Raoul Duke wrote: I post here because I enjoy the debate with Portnoy, Hardware and Comstock. The way you post, the anger, the vehemence, the vitriol, the personal attacks, the obsession and paranoia all make it clear that your world would collapse outside this forum. Click to expand That's because, unlike them, I choose not to ignore your bullying rhetoric but tackle it head on. Your style is more Rush Limbaugh than Ted Kennedy. And while you are correct that the US had 'enabling" legislation that allowed for the admission of States (dating back to 1802, a lot earlier than Alaska and Hawaii,) these had nothing to do with the German Enabling Act of 1933 (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich or "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the State".) Click to expand You conveniently forget that you made a huge deal out of the fact that Chavez used the same NAME for his legislation as Hitler used for his; implying some deeper kinship between the two. I pointed out that other countries have had legislation with the same NAME, countries whose democratic credentials are currently not in dispute. Instead of conceding the point, you switch gears and stress CONTENT, pretending that's what you were posting all along. This is like when you switched gears from "public safety" to "convenience" on PATCO. Well, at least you're consistent on something. Perhaps there's hope for you yet. Click to expand Both subsequently attained power through very legal, very Democratic and Very Constitutional means. Click to expand Hitler never won a democratic election in the Weimar Republic. He was appointed (not elected) by Chancellor Von Hindenburg on January 30, 1933. Shortly after, he had the Reichstag (Parliament) burned. The new Parliament consisted solely of Nazi supporters, who consolidated his hold on power. "Very Democratic"? I suppose that's your sense of humor. In contrast, Hugo Chavez has actually won legitimate elections, starting in December 1998. The results of subsequent national elections and recall referenda were verified by a host on international observers, including the Carter Center. That Jimmy Carter would rise above his antipathy to Chavez's ideology and call the vote honestly surprised me, given his past kinship with right-wing dictators. Both had compliant rubberstamp parliaments pass "enabling acts" granting them the ability to Rule by Decree. Click to expand In the case of Nazi Germany, it was a 100% Nazi parliament, installed by a dictatorship. The Venezuelan Parliament's decisions have legitimacy, since each Parliamentarian was democratically elected. That Parliament is also multi-party; there are elected officials from parties who had supported the coup AGAINST Chavez years ago. Both used that power to expand their armed forces, especially the Air Forces. Click to expand One to launch a world war, the other to defend against a US-backed invasion. The US has never denied its support of the 2002 coup against Chavez. Both used their power to begin campaigns against their political enemies, beginning with removing them from state-run enterprises, the civil service, utilities, schools and the like. Click to expand ..except that Hitler removed anyone he perceived to be his enemy directly into camps like Dachau, the first Nazi concentration camp. Chavez has fired people legally, in the context of a democracy, and they all still live at home. To the extent that these people supported a violent coup against him, they got off easy. The politics of the coup plotters and supporters are much closer to Hitler. BTW, Chavez publicly apologized for his coup attempt. Hitler never apologized for the putsch of 1923, and Chavez's enemnies are only sorry that they did not succeed, a 'sorry' that you share, perhaps? And to think that the camps aren't coming to Venezuela is the height of naivetee. Click to expand Well, Chavez was elected in 1998. It's 2007, and still no concentration camps in Venezuela. What's taking him so long? Why is he feting gay people, instead of rounding them up like Castro, or sending them to death camps like Hitler? You also imply in another post that everyone at Gitmo is a foreign terrorist Click to expand They ain't Girl Scouts, Shelly, and they're not here to sell you a cookie. Click to expand So if they're not Girl Scouts, then they must be terrorists. You know this how? From Bush? Cheney? Or any other of those trustworthy sources that brought us Abu Ghraib? Actually, I'm surprised that, as a New Yorker, you'd actually be defending the terrorists. Click to expand I didn't realize that defending the terrorists including pointing out the possibility that many of the Gitmo prisoners are neither terrorists or sympathizers in the first place. Is indiscrimate rounding up the "one" issue where you agree with Bush? Well, here's another surprise for you: I support the right of accused Nazi war crimnals to receive a fair trial even though my grandparents were all murdered by the Nazis. I applauded Israel for ensuring that Adolf Eichmann had solid legal representation before he was convicted and executed. But, applying your logic, I'm defending mass murderers. Oh, wait, that's right. You're not a real New Yorker. You didn't live through 9/11 like those of us who actually live in the city. You live in the suburbs, with a wife and two kids, probably a dog, and a nice house on a leafy, tree-lined cul-de-sac. Click to expand Anyone who lives in New York State is a real New Yorker. At the time of 9/11. I was working in mid-town Manhattan and living in Nassau County at the time, and still am. No cul-de-sac, no dog. But what do you care about the facts? This shows how you just make stuff up as you go along. All the more reason to be skeptical about your stated credentials. Nice enough, I suppose. But it somehow doesn't fit the picture of the dedicated, militant socialist. Click to expand I didn't realize being a socialist meant taking a vow of poverty. Karl Marx's partner, Friedrich Engels, was a factory owner who lived 'nicely' and who financed much of Marx's work. Another stretch much bigger than a Liberal Democrat who agrees with Reagan on one solitary issue. Click to expand Some 'solitary' issues are more equal than others. PATCO had nothing to do with Iran-Contra and you know it. There's no relation, correlation or interrelation between the two. Click to expand You can say that until you're blue in the face, and it will still be just as (un)convincing. Those actions and just about everything in between was part of a campaign (not a conspiracy) to undo social progress and increase the privileges of the well-to-do at the expense of those less fortunate. The fact that Reagan kicked off his election campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the birthplace of the KKK, was not a coincidence. Moreover, in law, there's a presumption that a person (or a President, but not so much any more) will obey the law, and that to break the law is abbarant behaviour. Accordingly, it follows that we should not be surprised that Reagan followed the law (PATCO), but rather that he broke it (Iran-Contra.) Your suggestion that Reagan did not have to follow the law in 1981 because he subsequently broke it in Iran-Contra is therefore without merit Click to expand I did not suggest that he isn't legally bound to follow the law, but rather, that given his by-now-established predilection for breaking the law both before AND after the PATCO strike, his criteria for choosing to obey the law was always highly selective, and followed a pattern of service to the rich and the religious far Right, not to his country. Therefore, given Reagan's outlaw tendencies, shock and awe are definitely in order when he chose to obey the law. When he did obey the law, it wasn't because he HAD to, but because he WANTED to. Lets set aside for a moment the fact that socialism is an inherently overly idealistic philosophy. Click to expand No, it is not a fact. That is your opinion. As you can see, I was referring to your erroneous statement that I couldn't support Rev. Jackson and still oppose the PATCO strike, your implied position that one cannot vote for a candidate unless one agrees with that candidate on 100% of the issues... Click to expand Your increasingly hysterical tone about "public safety" suggested that where someone stands on that issue is the deciding factor. Given that, my inference was sound. Edited by - Sheldon on 3/9/2007 11:46:52 AM Click to expand -1 [Link]
Raoul Duke Member When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07	Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 7:59PM TonyC wrote: Don't waste any more of your energy on Sheldon. "Film critic for AVN" was the high point of his career, and that was nearly a decade ago. Click to expand You know, Tony, you're right. I just got home and read the daily delusional drivel. I haven't got tiiiiiiime for this Bullshit. Very Truly Yours, Rush Limbaugh (The Bully) Edited by - Raoul Duke on 3/9/2007 9:30:24 PM [Link]
Ejac Deactivated User 851 Posts 9/04	Posted - Mar 9 2007 : 9:42PM duffy wrote: This thread proves what many have always believed about pseudo-intellectuals: what they do in their spare time! Click to expand This reminds me of Phillip and Thornton Melon. Discussion is very important, don't get me wrong - Oxford Union has had some fascinating debates. But over-analysis can sometimes lead to overwhelming paralysis. Or go out of scope. I thought that my previous post summed things up, but maybe not. The best part was when he pulled his collar when his dad was yelling at him. [Link]
Alexander Portnoy Member Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 9:41AM Hey, I’m not just a pseudo-intellectual but I must also be a masochist, because I’m about to prolong the agony that reading this thread has become. But like any obsessive-compulsive neurotic I can't resist scratching that itch. the unknown pervert wrote: [Giving something a different name is not the same as eliminating it. Do you also think that food stamps have been eliminated just because they have been replaced by Vision cards? It is still the same concept with a different name. When all programs such as Vision, federally assisted low income housing, federally assisted child care, federally assisted (fill in the blank social program here) are done away then you can tell me that someone has eliminated welfare. Until then you are living in ideologyland while I reside in reality. Click to expand Ok let’s, get this straight AFDC and TANF are not the same thing. AFDC—A poverty alleviation program introduced as part of the L. Johnson’s Great Society. It was based on the theory that the ups and downs of market ie…impersonal market forces expose the most vulnerable strata of unskilled labor to falling into abject poverty: squalid living conditions, homelessness, hunger etc…It was by large hugely successful in eliminating abject poverty in the United States and during this era economic inequality was greatly reduced. TANF—Those jobs that AFDC counted on coming back never did, they went to China, Mexico and elsewhere. As a result people stayed on the rolls much longer than intended and poverty became generational. President Clinton in following the prevailing neo-liberal wisdom of the day reversed the logic of AFDC and shifted the onus of poverty back on to the individual. The theory: the unemployed lack the discipline to hold down and keep a job, any government offer of assistance needs to instill a work ethic in the poor. So far it has been a dismal failure…people who are on the program do not find full time work and after they no longer qualify for public assistance they fall back into abject poverty. TANF’s one achievement is to create a 21st Century version of the 19th Century poor house. Even ‘conservative’ economists now concede that upward social mobility is a total fiction. People are not just trapped on the bottom, but the government enforced work requirement is a form of modern day slavery. Not surprisingly the gains of the 60’s in reducing economic inequality have been reversed and as a result the US is starting to look more and more like it did before the New Deal. Perhaps in some very broad generic philosophical sense I suppose that one may argue that government assistance is government assistance. But in reality, theory, ideology, propaganda or otherwise TANF and AFDC are obviously different programs from top-to-bottom. Turn off the radio and get some facts and get some history. PS. Save me from this thread, does anyone have a good BDSM rec? Edited by - alexander portnoy on 3/10/2007 9:49:47 AM [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 10:08AM Alexander Portnoy wrote: Turn off the radio and get some facts and get some history. Click to expand Why would I do that? I might end up having to take some personal responsiblity for the monies withheld from my paycheck. It's so much more comforting to blame it on bleed-heart liberals giving my hard-earned wages to lazy brown people. [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 10:15AM And this meaningless chatter about a porn union really should stop. Anyone who is squeemish about the conditions under which porn is manufactored should simply stop watching/buying it. [Link]

JoshD Member 43 Posts 10/03	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 5:10PM As an earlier poster, very interesting to see where this thread has gone. A couple of points: The decisions made by prosecutors every day (under their "prosecutorial discretion") do more to define the laws we live under than any judge of jury. Laws are not schematic drawings, and prosecutors make the initial determination of how to interpret and enforce them. Judges and juries can't make decisions unless a case is before them -- so think about how much power a prosecutor is wielding, especially when they decide NOT to bring a case or enforce a particular law. As I said before, from strictly a leverage/tactical position, if I were an established porn actor what I would want rather than a union would be a license requirement. Lobbies for every profession, from barber to interior decorator to talent agent, support these state requirements. Of course they say its to protect the public, but it's just to minimize competition. A license requiring regular testing would merely track the industry standard. Even better if it required a bond. This would cut down on "new talent" significantly, not to mention people with warrants, felons, no permanent residence, etc. It makes a non or moderately skilled worker "skilled" -- i.e., you have a license. [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 5:26PM JoshD wrote: license requirement. Click to expand If the presence of a consumer-grade video camera provides First Ammendment protection to what is otherwise a mere act of prostitution, what makes you think a state licensing requirement wouldn't be equally vulnerable to the same line of attack? [Link]
Raoul Duke Member When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 7:17PM TonyC wrote: And this meaningless chatter about a porn union really should stop. Anyone who is squeemish about the conditions under which porn is manufactored should simply stop watching/buying it. Click to expand ...participating in it. [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 7:37PM Raoul Duke wrote: TonyC wrote: And this meaningless chatter about a porn union really should stop. Anyone who is squeemish about the conditions under which porn is manufactored should simply stop watching/buying it. Click to expand ...participating in it. Click to expand Oh blow me, you Staten Island hypocrit. No one on our set has ever done anything that they didn't do with the same person the night before, the week before, the month before, the year before; using whatever birth-control and or STD prevention methods they the used night before, the week before, the month before, the year before. [Link]
Alexander Portnoy Member Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 7:57PM TonyC wrote: Oh blow me, you Staten Island hypocrit. Click to expand Me thinks, TonyC doth protest too much. Whose the biggest masochist in this thread? That is the question. [Link]
Raoul Duke Member When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 8:21PM TonyC wrote: No one on our set has ever done anything that they didn't do with the same person the night before, the week before, the month before, the year before; using whatever birth-control and or STD prevention methods they the used night before, the week before, the month before, the year before. Click to expand Dude, you missed my point entirely. I'm talking about the ones who do porn for a year or so then go out and attack the industry, saying what degrading things they were made to do and how they hated it. Those are the hypocrites here, Tony. Nobody, certainly not me, has attacked you or Comstock Productions. Soooooo... Blow Me. [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 8:26PM Somebody get a camera. [Link]
TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 8:52PM Raoul Duke wrote: TonyC wrote: No one on our set has ever done anything that they didn't do with the same person the night before, the week before, the month before, the year before; using whatever birth-control and or STD prevention methods they the used night before, the week before, the month before, the year before. Click to expand Dude, you missed my point entirely. I'm talking about the ones who do porn for a year or so then go out and attack the industry, saying what degrading things they were made to do and how they hated it. Those are the hypocrites here, Tony. Nobody, certainly not me, has attacked you or Comstock Productions. Soooooo... Blow Me. Click to expand Emo. [Link]
Raoul Duke Member When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07	Posted - Mar 10 2007 : 9:25PM [Link]
Sheldon Member 263 Posts 9/04	Posted - Mar 11 2007 : 1:03PM Portnoy - from an "idiot" to a "masochist", thanks for the kind words. No complaints from this corner. TonyC - calling a potential customer of Comstock Films an 'idiot' (especially since, prior to that, said person did not address you at all) is not a smart way to do business. TonyC and Duke are now blowing each other. How charming. Well, at least we know what Duke's idea of having 'fun' is. Sorry I couldn't oblige. Of course, with their oral cavities currently occupied, perhaps they'll talk less and be less annoying? As a utopian fantasist, I can't be blamed for dreaming, eh? Edited by - Sheldon on 3/11/2007 1:09:58 PM [Link]

TonyC Comstock Films 2523 Posts 8/03	Posted - Mar 11 2007 : 1:40PM Sheldon wrote: TonyC - calling a potential customer of Comstock Films an 'idiot' (especially since, prior to that, said person did not address you at all) is not a smart way to do business. Click to expand Probably good advice, but looking back over the thread, the only person I seemm to have called an idiot is you, Sheldon. [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14594 Posts 3/02	Posted - Mar 11 2007 : 3:49PM prods with finger... yeah, it's done. [Link]