List The Presidential Candidates In Order of Whether They're Good or Bad for Porno

[Socks]

Canadian here, let's get that out of the way.. lol

Forgetting your personal views and whether the porn industry should even register in how you decide who to vote for, how would you rank the candidates in order of how porn-friendly they will be?

[Shakula]

ron paul #1

huckabee #worst

[ADL Colin]

Originally Posted by Shakula

ron paul #1

huckabee #worst

ron paul
....
huckabee
giuliani

[The Truth Hurts]

Good:

Bad:
Everyone else.

[Buff]

What they said:

Ron Paul is the ideal porn candidate. He's got the bunny ranch, hookers, and pimps supporting him because he's a free market guy. He thinks porn is immoral but he also thinks imposing his personal preferences on you is immoral -- more immoral than porn.

All the rest are dangerous.

[ytcracker]

ron paul fuck the rest

[lazycash]

LC #1
Ron Paul #2

[PornMogul]

clinton clinton clinton

[D]

As has been said, Ron Paul's the best for the least government intervention in _any_ business... adult included.

[Malicious Biz]

Originally Posted by D

As has been said, Ron Paul's the best for the least government intervention in _any_ business... adult included.

Least Federal involvement* He wouldn't care a bit if the states banned porn and wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it. Saying Paul is good for porn is like saying foxes guarding hen houses is a good idea.

[TampaToker]

ron paul
huckabee

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Malicious Biz

Least Federal involvement* He wouldn't care a bit if the states banned porn and wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it. Saying Paul is good for porn is like saying foxes guarding hen houses is a good idea.

Thank you for pointing this out. No one seems to see that he would allow the states to decide. Meaning if Alabama doesn't like porn, they can require an ISP to block all porn sites or go after porn sites who are shown to their residents. He would also be against net neutrality which would give the telcos all the power to charge you extra to download streaming video and other things.

[D]

Originally Posted by Malicious Biz

Least Federal involvement* He wouldn't care a bit if the states banned porn and wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it. Saying Paul is good for porn is like saying foxes guarding hen houses is a good idea.

Yeah... I guess I shoulda qualified it a bit more. Thanks for doing it for me. It's all on the Federal Level, of course.

But I can't say I agree with your analogy. States can, in the status quo, stop porn if they want to... ask any adult DVD distributor. Constitutionally, it's a right reserved to the States to regulate pornography as they see fit - short of a breach of the first amendment... and the courts, with the aid of groups such as the ACLU, have been rather decent about watching over our rights in that regard, I think.

The problem, I feel, comes when the Fed tries to impose their own regulation on this industry (2257, etc), which - if not for the loophole created by the Interstate Commerse Clause - would be decidedly unconstitutional. One of Ron Paul's platform points is to restore a bit of sensibility to the application of that clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, as - in it's current legal scope - it covers everything.

That, I think, would be pretty good for our industry. Not bad.

[D]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

No one seems to see that he would allow the states to decide. Meaning if Alabama doesn't like porn, they can require an ISP to block all porn sites or go after porn sites who are shown to their residents.

Actually, there's already much legal precedent to declare any ISP filters of that sort unconstitutional.

The next president will be the leader of the executive - not the judiciary.

[jollyperv]

Good thread

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by D

Actually, there's already much legal precedent to declare any ISP filters of that sort unconstitutional.

The next president will be the leader of the executive - not the judiciary.

He will pick federal prosecutors as well as select replacements for the Supreme Court. We're a conservative judge away from having a lot of things overturned.

[flashfire]

why dont we list the ones that actually have a shot at winning?

[D]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

We're a conservative judge away from having a lot of things overturned.

I'll give you that. Roe vs. Wade is certainly among the precedents that would hang in the balance.

But I don't think that first amendment issues are the ones that are in danger of being overturned.

Historically (at least according to my last PolySci professor - not really up for doing the research to cite examples at the moment), conservative judges are the staunchest supporters of constitutional rights - including the ones enumerated in the first amendment.

On the other thing you said, I'm not sure what his appointing federal prosecutors has to do with anything if the power to regulate porn is left exclusively to the States. A federal prosecutor wouldn't have anything to do with it, right? Or is my brain missing something at the late hour?

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

I would need to see them all nude to know if they are good or bad for porno.

On second thought, that explains why they are in politics, and not porn...

ADG

[D]

Originally Posted by flashfire

why dont we list the ones that actually have a shot at winning?

In February, 1992 - Bill Clinton Carried 3% of the Iowa Caucus, and later went on to win the U.S. Presidency.

Today, Ron Paul carried 10% of the same Caucus.

That kinda makes me wonder if people are maybe being a bit premature in being so overtly negative about his chances..

[V_RocKs]

Originally Posted by Malicious Biz

Least Federal involvement* He wouldn't care a bit if the states banned porn and wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it. Saying Paul is good for porn is like saying foxes guarding hen houses is a good idea.

I for one would love this guy.

Why? Because I live in the porn capital of the world, California.

Whether the president likes porn or a state does or whatever really doesn't matter anyway. 1st Amendment says I have a right to speech. If that right is removed, I will just move somewhere else where that rule doesn't apply.

[ADL Colin]

Originally Posted by Malicious Biz

Least Federal involvement* He wouldn't care a bit if the states banned porn and wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it. Saying Paul is good for porn is like saying foxes guarding hen houses is a good idea.

I wouldn't say he's good or bad for porn. Just that he would be better than the other candidates for porn. Certainly anyone like Giuliani who has anti-porn credentials.

[Socks]

Originally Posted by D

In February, 1992 - Bill Clinton Carried 3% of the Iowa Caucus, and later went on to win the U.S. Presidency.

Today, Ron Paul carried 10% of the same Caucus.

That kinda makes me wonder if people are maybe being a bit premature in being so overtly negative about his chances..

Now there's a fucking feel-good post, thanks.

[Socks]

Still haven't heard anything about the leading candidates, which honestly is what I know the least about.

How would obama, clinton, thompson, edwards, or mccain fare for us?

[Malicious Biz]

Originally Posted by V_RocKs

I for one would love this guy.

Why? Because I live in the porn capital of the world, California.

Whether the president likes porn or a state does or whatever really doesn't matter anyway. 1st Amendment says I have a right to speech. If that right is removed, I will just move somewhere else where that rule doesn't apply.

Internet pornography reaches all 50 states last time I checked. What happens to your bottom line when porn is banned in half of them? 3/4 of them? you can't move to another state to avoid that.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Thank you for pointing this out. No one seems to see that he would allow the states to decide. Meaning if Alabama doesn't like porn, they can require an ISP to block all porn sites or go after porn sites who are shown to their residents. He would also be against net neutrality which would give the telcos all the power to charge you extra to download streaming video and other things.

Alabama couldn't do that. Then you're talking about interstate commerce and I'm sure there are various other laws lawyers could use to stop that.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Socks

Still haven't heard anything about the leading candidates, which honestly is what I know the least about.

How would obama, clinton, thompson, edwards, or mccain fare for us?

well Bill Clinton made no attemtpt to prosecute obscenity. I'm pretty sure Hillary would be of the same mindset. I still don't want her as President though.

[Socks]

I think even under Paul having a state declare they're banning pornography from their citizens would be groundshaking news no matter what side of the fence you're on..

Imagine, Playboy banned in Tennesse? I don't see that happening in our lifetime no matter who is in charge, it would be a wild one for sure.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Malicious Biz

Least Federal involvement* He wouldn't care a bit if the states banned porn and wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it. Saying Paul is good for porn is like saying foxes guarding hen houses is a good idea.

They forget that part ,that it would go back to the states. Which could be very painful.

[Malicious Biz]

Originally Posted by Socks

I think even under Paul having a state declare they're banning pornography from their citizens would be groundshaking news no matter what side of the fence you're on..

Imagine, Playboy banned in Tennesse? I don't see that happening in our lifetime no matter who is in charge, it would be a wild one for sure.

You don't think, given the total right to make the call, that some states wouldn't ban pornography? I wouldn't want to bet money on that.. that's for sure.

[pornguy]

They all suck ass in one way or another.

[notoldschool]

Originally Posted by GatorB

well Bill Clinton made no attemtpt to prosecute obscenity. I'm pretty sure Hillary would be of the same mindset. I still don't want her as President though.

I think your wrong. I believe its true that he had the most obscentity charges than any other president including the current bush.

[D]

Originally Posted by tony404

They forget that part ,that it would go back to the states. Which could be very painful.

Again... it's _already_ in the hands of the states. Nothing would change in that regard.

Currently, the Fed is just imposing _another_ level of executive authority over us.... that's what could change under Ron Paul - a reduction in the flex-power of that level of authority.

[notoldschool]

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/te...#open-internet

If I had to go democrat he might be our best bet. Clinton would be much worse for our industry.

Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Information through an Open Internet and Diverse Media Outlets

Protect the Openness of the Internet: A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way. Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet. Users must be free to access content, to use applications, and to attach personal devices. They have a right to receive accurate and honest information about service plans. But these guarantees are not enough to prevent network providers from discriminating in ways that limit the freedom of expression on the Internet. Because most Americans only have a choice of only one or two broadband carriers, carriers are tempted to impose a toll charge on content and services, discriminating against websites that are unwilling to pay for equal treatment. This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. Such a result would threaten innovation, the open tradition and architecture of the Internet, and competition among content and backbone providers. It would also threaten the equality of speech through which the Internet has begun to transform American political and cultural discourse. Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others. This principle will ensure that the new competitors, especially small or non-profit speakers, have the same opportunity as incumbents to innovate on the Internet and to reach large audiences. Obama will protect the Internet?s traditional openness to innovation and creativity and ensure that it remains a platform for free speech and innovation that will benefit consumers and our democracy.
Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Barack Obama believes that the nation?s rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. Barack Obama believes that providing opportunities for minority-owned businesses to own radio and television stations is fundamental to creating the diverse media environment that federal law requires and the country deserves and demands. As president, he will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation?s spectrum. An Obama presidency will promote greater coverage of local issues and better responsiveness by broadcasters to the communities they serve.
Protect Our Children While Preserving the First Amendment: By making information freely available from untold numbers of sources, the Internet and more traditional media outlets have a huge influence on our children. Barack Obama believes that the openness of the new media world should be seen as an opportunity as much as some see it as a threat. We live in the most information-abundant age in history and the people who develop the skills to utilize its benefits are the people who will succeed in the 21st century. But Barack Obama also recognizes that lurking out there are the darker corners of the media world: from Internet predators to hateful messages to graphic violence and sex. Obama values our First Amendment freedoms and our right to artistic expression and does not view regulation as the answer to these concerns. Instead, an Obama administration will give parents the tools and information they need to control what their children see on television and the Internet in ways fully consistent with the First Amendment.
An Obama administration will encourage the creation of Public Media 2.0., the next generation of public media that will create the Sesame Street of the Digital Age and other video and interactive programming that educates and informs. Obama will support the transition of existing public broadcasting entities and help renew their founding vision in the digital world.
Obama will work to give parents the tools to prevent reception of programming that they find offensive on television and on digital media. Obama will encourage improvements to the existing voluntary rating system, exploiting new technologies like tagging and filtering, so that parents can better understand what content their children will see, and have the tools to respond. Private entities like Common Sense Media are pursuing a ?sanity not censorship? approach, which can serve as a model for how to use technology to empower parents without offending the First Amendment.
Obama will encourage industry not to show inappropriate adult-oriented commercial advertising during children?s programming.
On the Internet, Obama will require that parents have the option of receiving parental controls software that not only blocks objectionable Internet content but also prevents children from revealing personal information through their home computer.
To further protect children online, Obama supports tough penalties, increased enforcement resources and forensic tools for law enforcement, and collaboration between law enforcement and the private sector to identify and prosecute people who abuse the Internet to try to exploit children

[collegeboobies]

Originally Posted by Malicious Biz

Least Federal involvement* He wouldn't care a bit if the states banned porn and wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it. Saying Paul is good for porn is like saying foxes guarding hen houses is a good idea.

Its already banned in many many zip codes across the country. SOomany surfers cannot buy VOD with hardcore because of their zip code, Directv subscribers in certain zip codes cant see the hardcore PPV channels. So give me a fucking break OMG what if the states ban porn....... Ron Paul is clearly the best for the porn industry.

[CarlosTheGaucho]

LOL

I imagined all of them on the set in front of the cams and was already starting to make a list..

[ADL Colin]

Originally Posted by GatorB

well Bill Clinton made no attemtpt to prosecute obscenity. I'm pretty sure Hillary would be of the same mindset. I still don't want her as President though.

Well, he signed COPA and the white house issued a statement defending that. And of course Reno defended COPA in court.