NUKE_CLEVELAND

This film is little more than a way for extreme leftists to vent their frustration at the fact that Bush is president. Sadly, there is a group of people out there who's hatred for the man is so strong that they actually would enjoy watching a film like this.

If you believe that men are oppressors......... If you believe in abortion on demand............. If you believe in preferential treatment for women similar to affirmative action......... If you openly hostile to the concept of marriage between a man and a woman.............. Oh hell, it's all right here. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg1662.cfm

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:41 AM) Nuke believes women should have equal rights (under the law) as men. So, Nuke, how does that NOT make you a feminist again? You may deny the label, but you fit the description. Wanting women to have equal treatment under the law is common sense. The radical feminist agenda is nothing even remotely related to that.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:34 AM) So what you're basically saying is that the only difference between you and the mullah is a disagreement over a headcovering? Okay. It is, after all, just a matter of degrees at this point. Ive heard some pretty asinine things come from you but that just tops the cake. Go find me one post where I advocate women being treated as second class citizens. Go find me one post where I state women shouldn't have the right to vote. Go find me one post where I advocate husbands beating their wives. Go find me one post where I say that you need 5 witnesses to prove rape. I wont hold my breath. It'll be a lot easier, though, for you to find posts written by me where I bemoan how awful women are treated in the Islamic world. Just because I dont agree with the radical feminist agenda I must be one of the mullah's huh? What the f*** ever. Go to the store and buy yourself a f***ing clue.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:15 AM) Media coverage of the issues that effect civil liberties (i.e. warrantless searches and wiretaps, etc.) has been minimal. What people see more of, I think, is things like increased security at airports and events. That is what they are interpereting as resrictions. And in those cases I agree, they really aren't restricting or effecting my liberties. I couldn't disagree more. The media has been talking about wiretaps and the Patriot Act constantly since they came to light. ( I wish I had access to Lexis/Nexis to get a hard number ) I think the bottom line here is that most of this stuff really doesn't have an effect on people's daily lives, in spite of the hysteria, and as such they don't percieve it as a threat.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:23 AM) To follow up on the housing discussion and its effect on the economy, housing prices dropped 9.7% YOY in September, the largest drop in 35 years. But, the pace of sales has climbed the last two months. So, if the sales rise isn't a blip, it looks like the fall in prices is being immediately followed by a snap-up by consumers. That could spell good news for keeping the "housing recession" shallow and short. Or not. Hard to tell just yet. Far as Im concerned, the housing bubble was little different than the stock market bubble back in 2000. Home prices, especially in certain areas of the country got wildly overinflated and now the market is taking steps to correct that. This is ECON 101 here and thats why I laugh when guys like Lou Dobbs go on television and proclaim doom and gloom and say there's a war on the middle class when overpriced houses come back down to where they should be. Dobbs and those like him just love to tell phony stories to the uneducated in order to scare them into voting Democratic.

From Link 1: There's actually 2 study's that were involved in these articles. Did they include details? No. Seems to me that you're reduced to quibbling about details now ( I suspect you'd want a list of names and telephone numbers of everybody involved in this research before you'd accept it ). By arguing here and trying to discredit what Ive posted, you are just making the argument that porn isin't really that bad for kids. This whole thread was about the ACLU suing to break down protections keeping children from online porn. Your argument is that parents should be solely responsible for what their kids view online but in spite of that there is overwhelming evidence noted in about a dozen posts in this thread that kids are still accessing it in ever increasing numbers.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 09:01 AM) As with most political issues that aren't in the public's face every day and really, really simple to understand... the American public remains blissfully ignorant. I dont see how that's possible with the constant drone of the media both traditional and non-traditional telling us how we're becomming a police state.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 08:59 AM) To say your views are on the far right on this issue would be like saying its been a while since the Cubs won a world series. Same could be said about a lot of issues.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 08:54 AM) What's telling for me is that the local stations in Chicago were covering some speech he was giving here in town just a couple of days ago. Except for the occasional jerk he looked fine. It's pretty obvious that the ad was an attempt to garner any sympathy possible. I think it's yet another sh*tty campaign technique that's a perfect example for whats wrong with this country's political system. That being said, I think my fellow Republicans are absolute morons for not allowing stem cell research. I have mixed feelings about stem cell research but for the Democrats to have Fox get on television and put on an act like that in support of their candidates and causes is just utterly shameful.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html Guess people aren't all that upset about the Patriot Act or wiretapping or much of anything else that has been done to fight terrorism. No surprise to me.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 11:31 PM) Pat Robertson, Presidential candidate 1992. Lets deconstruct that quote: Socialist: Check Anti-Family: Check Leave their Husbands: Check Kill their Children: Their support of Abortion as a means of contraception = Check Practice Witchcraft: That's too looney even for feminazis. NoGo on this one. Destroy Capitalism: Check Become Lesbians: Check Robertson was 6/7 on that one.

I saw the ad myself and I actually think Limbaugh is right. My grandmother had Parkinsons really bad and even when she was off her meds she didn't shake like that.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 08:29 AM) A higher wage. How about a full compensation package? I'll tell you right now, its not even close. As for total compensation packages you are right and that's the reason the Big 3 are losing money hand over fist and moving capacity to other countries.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 08:56 PM) It's not only this but at the university level, Blago is trying to keep professors from coming here. He just changed our benefits to do away with survivor benefits. Now who in their right mind thinks that's a good idea? Also the state is 1 billion dollars short on paying into our pension over the last 10 years. There was a law staing that in 2006 the state would need to begin to make payments into the pension fund. Blago and cronies repealed that law. Since our social security goes to the state, we won't get a pension or social security. I LUV POLITICS!!!!! Wow. You got SCREWED.

QUOTE(LowerCaseRepublican @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 08:20 PM) Yep -- Blago is a lying sonofawhore. In the latest national report card, Illinois had the largest achievement gap between low-poverty and high-poverty students in the nation in three of four tests in reading and math. One-third of Illinois public schools failed federal academic standards, reflecting a deplorable achievement gap, leaving far too many students behind. Illinois is not keeping its teachers. High levels of teacher turnover and attrition contribute to a shortage of high quality teachers and chronic low student achievement. The national attrition rate for new teachers over a five-year period is 46 percent, and Illinois far exceeds that rate with 58 percent attrition. As a teacher yourself do you think high turnover is a symptom of low pay, dealing with red tape/administrators, kids driving them nutty or a combination of things?

QUOTE(ptatc @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 08:08 PM) The problem with Illinois schools is the funding system. They use the taxes from the school districts to fund that school which create large descrepancies from school to school. Rich areas get better school funding poor areas get low funding. There was a survey that found Illinois was 47 or 48 in state money for schools. And we wonder why the educational system is screwed up in this state. What happened to all that lottery money that was supposed to fund education? It went to education alright, but other funding was taken away. Classic shell game.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 05:22 PM) or the post where southsider2k5 adds to his sizable post count while adding nothing to the actual conversation Thats nothing special. He does that with most any thread.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 07:18 PM) So, if they're getting past porn with this law in place... which is either unenforced, unenforceable or most likely both. What's wrong with overturning the law to ensure it isn't capriciously used for the wrong reasons? This law is not in place. Its actually been bouncing from one court challenge to another since it was approved.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:50 PM) Nuke, this study kind of addresses your point, but with relatively different hypotheses and conclusions. Interesting peer reviewed article on the topic. Just found it. If anyone would like to read the entire article, drop me a pm with your e-mail and I can send you a pdf. Estimates suggest that up to 90% or more youth between 12 and 18 years have access to the Internet. Concern has been raised that this increased accessibility may lead to a rise in pornography seeking among children and adolescents, with potentially serious ramifications for child and adolescent sexual development. Using data from the Youth Internet Safety Survey, a nationally representative, cross-sectional telephone survey of 1501 children and adolescents (ages 10-17 years), characteristics associated with self-reported pornography seeking behavior, both on the Internet and using traditional methods (e.g., magazines), are identified. Seekers of pornography, both online and offline, are significantly more likely to be male, with only 5% of self-identified seekers being female. The vast majority (87%) of youth who report looking for sexual images online are 14 years of age or older, when it is developmentally appropriate to be sexually curious. Children under the age of 14 who have intentionally looked at pornography are more likely to report traditional exposures, such as magazines or movies. Concerns about a large group of young children exposing themselves to pornography on the Internet may be overstated. Those who report intentional exposure to pornography, irrespective of source, are significantly more likely to cross-sectionally report delinquent behavior and substance use in the previous year. Further, online seekers versus offline seekers are more likely to report clinical features associated with depression and lower levels of emotional bonding with their caregiver. Results of the current investigation raise important questions for further inquiry. Findings from these cross-sectional data provide justification for longitudinal studies aimed at parsing out temporal sequencing of psychosocial experiences. Ybarra, M., & Mitchell, K. (2005) Exposure to Internet pornography among children and adolescents: A national survey. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 8, 473-486. ETA: Ongoing concern about effects of sexually explicit materials includes the role of such material in sex offenses. Issues include sex offenders' experiences with pornography and the link between pornography and sex crime rates. Review of the literature shows that sex offenders typically do not have earlier or more unusual exposure to pornography in childhood or adolescence, compared to nonoffenders. However, a minority of offenders report current use of pornography in their offenses. Rape rates are not consistently associated with pornography circulation, and the relationships found are ambiguous. Findings are consistent with a social learning view of pornography, but not with the view that sexually explicit materials in general contribute directly to sex crimes. The effort to reduce sex offenses should focus on types of experiences and backgrounds applicable to a larger number of offenders. Bauserman, R. (1996). Sexual aggression and pornography: A review of correlational research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 405-427 No, I'm still waiting to see evidence from a peer reviewed journal, or at least evidence that actually has a real SOURCE. You have not yet provided any sort of statistics about increased likelyhood of getting pregnant or an STD. You have one source that says (without any citations or referenes for the fact) that says that there are documented instances of kids looking at porn having sex earlier and getting more stds. I don't think it's unreasonable to be skeptical of the your document because it provides no empirical evidence or, well, any outside evidence I'm not saying this is NOT a pressing issue. I'm saying this is an issue that should be dealt with by families (and I don't mean Uncle Sam). You've been provided with a study, presented to the U.S. Senate no less, that says that exposing children to pornography has negative effects on their development, including the effects you deny exist. ( even though these effects should be patently obvious to anyone when you take into account how impressionable children are ). You choose to disavow it. You have been presented with facts and stats that say that children are viewing pornography online in increasing numbers, in spite of parent's best efforts to rein that sort of thing in. You choose to disavow it. You say you require stats proving that it is so, yet even in the absence of said statistics ( I can't find a study that is that focused ) there is hard evidence that pornography negatively affects a childs development and they have easier and easier access to it. It is certainly logical to draw the conclusion that I originally have drawn but you can't seem to draw that correlation. So from the history of this thread it is safe to say that you don't believe that pornography has negative effects on children. Now, in your last sentence you are saying that children viewing pornography is an issue and needs to be dealt with. Which is it?

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:36 PM) From my post: And the one section where they talk about kids viewing porn they just say these things are DOCUMENTED. Of course it's been documented, but that statement is USELESS without a qualification of prevelence. So readers have no idea if they're talking about the majority of kids who see porn or if just a tiny subset of those kids. And I don't see where the author got those statistics (that section isn't linked to any empirical or peer reviewed article). Yes it has been documented, but Nuke, they don't tell you the frequency or prevelence. It's also been documented that a Republican Congressmen sent dirty e-mails to kids. Does that mean that the majority of congressmen do it? Or that a statistically insignificant number of congressmen do it? Without that kind of a qualification (and I would argue actual sources supporting this) it's a useless statement. So you've gone from "oh its not really a problem" to "well it's a problem but you can't prove how much of a problem". We know the effects that this stuff has on kids, we know that kids are getting access to porn online in ever increasing numbers and yet you persist in your viewpoint that this is not a pressing issue.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 04:31 PM) First, a lot of the second link you provide talks about the negative impact ADULT usage of pornography has on children. So, does that mean PARENTS shouldn't be allowed to view porn? Basically, the heritage websites seem to be anti-porn period. And the one section where they talk about kids viewing porn they just say these things are DOCUMENTED. Of course it's been documented, but that statement is USELESS without a qualification of prevelence. So readers have no idea if they're talking about the majority of kids who see porn or if just a subset. And I don't see where the author got those statistics (that section isn't linked to any empirical or peer reviewed article). Personally, I think porn is like alcohol. Yes it's a vice. It's not for everyone. But in moderate doses can it cause problems? I doubt it. If you're on the net every night playing the skin flute to porn then, yes, that is obviously going to negatively impact your family. Honestly, you should bring that up at a library board meeting (or to someone on the board). You pay for their services, so give them your feedback. From the second link.

Took me a little while Soxy but here you go. http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed120605a.cfm http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/tst111405a.cfm This study, who's findings were presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, documents the negative impact of direct viewing by children of porn. To compound the problem, this study here, taken by the Center for Missing and Exploited Children........ http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSCView.asp?coid=699 ........found the following. I also enjoyed the irony of locating these stats on a site dedicated to anti-censorship causes. Going back to my original Heritage foundation link, if you believe the London School of Economics interpretation of children's exposure to online pornography....... .........

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:34 PM) So is dodging a question. But that's been expected of you for quite some time. If parental responsibility is acceptable for determining a child's diet, why isn't it acceptable for determining the content that a child views on the internet? There are plenty of for-profit, market-based solutions that will think of the children better than the government ever could. What someone views on the internet is an issue of personal responsibility and parental responsibility. The government has no place in limiting what can and can't be viewed online. As Steff said earlier it's extremely difficult for parents to stand by their kids and monitor their internet viewing whenever they are viewing it. Conversely, parents have a lot of control of what their kids are being fed because nearly all of the time they are the ones doing the feeding. The Internet is the wild west of media and the regulation covering it is far less stringent than television or radio and as a result the wrong people (kids) are far more likely to view the wrong material (porn).

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 25, 2006 -> 03:28 PM) Well then, maybe the government should fund research into treatments that would retard puberty until they reach the age of majority.... after all I hear that puberty is a major factor in encouraging kids to experiment with sex. And we have to think of the children! Once again. Sarcasm is a poor substitute for a reasoned argument. But that's to be expected from some.