|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » DID YOU KNOW... |
| 1-9 of 9 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 07-19-18 08:27am - 2348 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Darius (0)
Suspended  Posts: 46 Registered: Aug 11, '16 |
DID YOU KNOW... ... that pornography is illegal in China? And both Koreas. Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, Cuba, Iceland, not to mention many, "religious" countries, And porn is semi-legal in Russia? India, Australia, Japan, UK, etc, etc, I can't figure out why. All I want to say is, USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! -D | |
|
||
| 07-19-18 10:45am - 2348 days | #2 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Wait until Trump pushes a few more conservative judged on the Supreme Court. Then there's a good chance porn might be semi-legal or banned in the USA. After all, if God meant for us to watch porn, he would never have allowed the Christian moral majority (and any other Religious majority) to prosper. Down with porn. Up with prayer books. A clean mind in a clean body is the way to God. | |
|
||
| 07-27-18 07:17am - 2340 days | #3 | |
|
iknowwazzup (0)
Active User  Posts: 132 Registered: Jan 06, '16 Location: United States |
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/porn-blo...-age-verifcation-law Apparently, the UK has plans to make it harder to access porn. I think that some people blame all kinds of social ills on porn without there really being any proof to their theory. | |
|
||
| 07-27-18 07:55am - 2340 days | #4 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I stumbled across an article on the same topic last year. That article stated there were serious problems with the British plan and how it could be used. One danger was that MindGeek, the owner of Pornhub and many other porn sites, could become even more powerful, if the UK forces UK citizens to sign up with the MindGeek age verification system. Not just because of additional revenue flowing to MindGeek, but also the massive amount of personal data that MindGeek will acquire. There are supposed to be firewalls between MindGeek's personal data, but that is flimsy. And the idea of giving the UK government more control over Internet access is dangerous to begin with. | |
|
||
| 07-27-18 09:03am - 2340 days | #5 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
The Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, does not make or change law. All a conservative Justice would do is strictly adhere to the constitution and interpret existing law, which when done, helps preserve your freedom. It is liberals, who can't get their agenda passed thru voting, that attempts to make law via the courts. | |
|
||
| 07-27-18 11:06am - 2340 days | #6 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I agree the US Supreme Court does not technically make laws: they offer opinions on the law. Opinions can change. Roe vs. Wade made abortions legal. I'm simplifying. A Supreme Court filled with conservative judges could make abortions illegal. Again, I'm simplifying. Is that making the law? No. It's interpreting the law. To show what is legal. But in my mind, I believe the law is built on sand. And the distinction between making the law, and offering opinions on the law, is built on sand: The Supreme Court says abortions are legal. The Supreme Court can, in the future, say abortions are illegal. Is the Supreme Court making laws? Or giving opinions? The distinction can be nebulous, in my mind. | |
|
||
| 07-27-18 11:12am - 2340 days | #7 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
What is the law? A Supreme Court, filled with conservatives, could derail the impeachment of Donald Trump. For many different reasons. A Supreme Court, filled with liberals, (which won't happen with Trump nominating conservatives), could possibly allow the impeachment of Donald Trump. Just one more reason to stop Trump's nominees to the Supreme Court from being approved. | |
|
||
| 07-27-18 02:34pm - 2340 days | #8 | |
|
Jade1 (0)
Active User Posts: 103 Registered: Mar 28, '18 |
The law is that stuff congress does, or should be doing anyway. And outside of the Chief Justice presiding over the trial the SC is not involved in impeachment. Supreme court Justices should never do anything but follow the constitution and interpret the laws on the books as they were intended when created. It shouldn't matter if they are liberal or conservative if they do their job correctly & honestly. Gorsuch was a great selection. Sorry you don't see that. | |
|
||
| 07-28-18 09:09am - 2339 days | #9 | |
|
merc77 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 291 Registered: Apr 17, '16 |
We will find out how conservative those judges are when they get to decide the Emoluments Clause lawsuit against President Trump. The definition of emoluments in the Constitution is quite clear so it should be a 9-0 ruling in favor of the lawsuit. "Dogs think people are Gods. Cats don't as they know better." - Kedi (2016) Dogs have masters; Cats have staff. | |
|
||
| 1-9 of 9 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
