Michele Bachmann pledges to ban "all forms of pornography" if elected president
 

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...ornography.php

thats at least the third thread now...

Oops, my bad.

stupid slut

Something tells me she wont get elected doing this.

Voters dont need to admit they look at porn to vote so they will vote against her.

Maybe a "ban" isn't such a bad thing ...

Congrats on your 50k

its a real threat, after gamble they want to stop people enjoy porn, fuckers

fuck these kind of people :mad:

You can read what she signed at scribe.

Here's what part of it says:

• Humane protection of women and innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy - our next generation of American children from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

I think she's missing the word child, because porn is legal and the rest isn't - well other than abortions, I'm not even sure what some of the other shit is. Okay, she's just bat shit crazy....

She obviously has no clue of the US law, Constitution and history.

How do so many dumb people get to run for President?

How did one get elected? LOL

Bachmann pledge: Black families were better off during slavery than they are under Obama
 

This was probably posted before too, but here goes:


http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...ry_obama .php

innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy

Still love the language......

Politics in the US has really turned into a clown show.

You bet the threat is real and if you don't think so, you are living in a dream world!

This chick is so dumb. I mean, everything that comes out of her mouth is wrong. How did she even get elected to the place she's at now? How can she even hold a job?

http://mauryk2.files.wordpress.com/2...is_wack_21.jpg

http://www.treehugger.com/michele-bachmann.jpg

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/...hmann-nuts.jpg

http://atlantapost.com/wp-content/up...e-Bachmann.jpg

¡Gracias :D!

better than living in a delusional world... First off, she couldn't win in a million years... A complete fluff candidate that is obviously burning out fast with every speech she makes. Second, constitutional laws protect against this kind of bullshit, or have you forgotten those in your rage against political candidates and general hate for the government?

Ignorant
 

I think I grab her husband watching interracial porn and take it wrong. TO BAD Miss Bachmann
what next? prohibit the forums! hahah You little bitch.

We all knew she was an idiot -- but this just proves how stupid and naive she really is.

Who does she think will have to vote for that law? Women? No, it's almost all men that will be voting. What man will vote to outlaw pornography?

It's because she's married to a homo that she doesn't realize how a man even thinks.

It will never happen. Everyone loves porn, even if they try to act like they don't. EVERYONE.

i think its weird that those kind of kooks even exist on the political map and are even popular by alot of people (like sarah palin), they are like cartoon characters with their utter stupidity, and they even get alot of people to follow them. The state of the US is very sad right now, and despite the fact that almost everyone has world information litterally at their fingertips to educate themselves and be way smarter than a 100 years ago, the worlds of these people seem to be so small like they are living in a cave. A devolution of mankind, when you would think with so much information available that it would be the other way around. Very weird.

i agree. the internet has somehow made people more stupid and primitive.

must make tim berners lee cry sometimes.

Sarah Palin is a Rhodes Scholar compared to this fruitcake. Someone get me my rifle.

Living in Canada as you claim to be, you have no idea of he backlash growing in the USA right now. Bachmann or someone like her could indeed win and things could well be decided in the next few weeks as athe budget battle may be the determining factor.

The US constitution does not in and of itslef protect porn but rather the Supreme Court has defined "obscenity" pretty much as that which violates community standards. Many states prohibit gay marriage and ban "sodomy"; anal and oral sex, same-sex acts and have therfore set the "community standard".

All that is needed RIGHT NOW is for a single judge in a single jurisdiction to determine that gay porn violates community standards for obscenity and BANG!

Gay porn gone until the subsequent very, very expensive and time comsuming court battle is over and even then there would be no guarrantee of a win for gay porn.

Yes, it could happen and very well may.

You don't think they learned with the Prohibition? Make it illegal only creates a black market for porn that cannot be regulated or taxed.

not confirmed, just a quick search

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...he-us-census-b

but this says that 'crazy statement' is confirmed

She's married to a gay man who is in complete denial to the point where he pretends to attempt to talk other gays out of their lifestyle.

You watch. Soon her husband will have the undivided attention of country on him, and he'll snap by raping a little boy.

You are simply wrong in your analysis here.

Among other things, any obscenity ruling by a "single judge in a single jurisdiction" would merely set precedent for what is obscene with respect to that community. That standard would not somehow magically be applicable nationally. That's simply not how obscenity law works.

The whole point of the community standards prong of the Miller test is to serve as recognition that what is considered obscene by the community standards of Greenville, AL might not be considered obscene by the community standards of New York, NY.

Beyond that, each "speaker" has an independent right to defend his/her expression against obscenity charges. Just because one porn movie or another is found to be obscene by a community does NOT mean that the next, similar porn movie indicted in that community would be found to be obscene, as well. Two very similar movies could have radically different measures of "literary value," for example, and if a work is held to have serious literary value by the trier of fact in an obscenity case, then under the Miller Test that work is not obscene, by definition.

There's also a temporal factor to the Miller Test, because the first prong specifically references "contemporary" community standards. In other words, just because a court found Tropic of Cancer to be obscene in 1964 (a ruling that was overturned by the Supreme Court, anyway) doesn't mean the same work would be found obscene by the same community's standards here in 2011.

It's also worth noting that the pledge that Bachmann signed doesn't actually say anything about banning porn. The relevant paragraph is a whole lot more vague than that, and IMO you have to make several assumptions about the underlying subtext of that ninth paragraph to read it as a promise to ban porn. No matter how you slice that paragraph, it certainly isn't a clear call for a ban on porn, as many of the headlines relating to the pledge suggest it is.

Flash in the pan. She will be history soon.

I wonder that myself....sigh...

No porn is sleazier than politics.

No pornographer is as morally bankrupt as a politician.



I should probably start selling bumper stickers and t-shirts....