Who are you Voting for in 2008
 

Which candidate supports the porn industry, I would assume a democrat, Who are you voting for in 2008 and why?

Ron Paul strongly opposes any regulation of the internet...

Let you know when all 300 of them are whittled down to only a handful.

That's easy, Bill Richardson of course.

http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/3...rfusiontu7.jpg

:thumbsup

I am all for Kevin Rudd. oh, well, we have an election at the end of the year also.

I'm not even 100% sure that I know who all is running.

Oddly... forgetting political parties and all the baggage they carry and looking at any individuals who may actually have some qualifications/experience to run a country with any competence, prob Richardson has more than any of them.

Indeed. Ron Paul is the way to go.

Joey butafuko

If you are a porn webmaster you shouldnt be voting republican (unless it is Ron Paul - he is A+++). Obama?

Well its kind of hard to actually say since there have been no nominations yet, and the running is very likely to change drastically within the next 6 months. However I am strongly inclined to believe the Republican nominee will be Fred Thompson, and he will get my vote without question.

Tell us why exactly that is true. Show me one thing the democrats have done in support of our industry. I see a lot of people parrot that same view, but seems pretty baseless to me. If anything if you are doing well enough you get bumped into a higher tax bracket because of porn you should be voting republican. That is the only real difference. Which party is more likely to not fuck you over on taxes.

Whoever the Dems put up as you have to switch the power back and forth or one party gets too strong...:pimp

Im not american but if I was, Ron Paul.

Sounds about right - vote for a lobbyist and a character actor. Just the qualifications the US needs to clear all the wreckage the current admin have generated :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Ill remind you Reagan had the same stigmas applied to him. Maybe you should do some research on him prior to applying your silly labels. Ive done my research on him, and he has a very strong background which incase you didnt realize includes United States Senator.

Typical of you though.

Sure... that's why the US is so great - anyone can be the President and idiots like you are allowed to vote and breath good air :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Seriously Sticky... nothing particularly against Thompson, he's prob an OK guy, but let's put it this way - he would never lead any other country in the western world. The cred and track record just is not there.

Didn't we just have a your new baby thread where some guy mentioned to make sure you didn't force your political views on your kid.. lol.. G'luck with that. :P

As typical for you, you are a total moron and have not a clue of what the man has accomplished. Let me guess You would prefer Obama ROFL :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

How exactly does one thing have anything to do with the other? :uhoh Frankly I dont really care about the advice of some dufus on a message board when it pertains to my children. K thx

Republicans are obviously likely to keep the tax bracket lower . . . but also more likely to make our lives more miserable or kill our industry altogether so we don't have any income to pay taxes on.

I'd rather pay 35% on $100k than 31% percent on a $50k office job where I have to show up 9-5, 51 weeks per year.

Here is a hint, its not Republicans going after us. You guys act like the dems stand shoulder to shoulder with us fighting for our rights.. pft.

It's not about the politicians. It's about the Judges.
 

No candidate from either party will support porn. You all aren't looking at it the right way.

The question is . . . which candidate will appoint the judges that are the most liberal with their interpretations of privacy and civil liberties statutes. Not just at the Supreme Court but the Federal Appellate level too.

That would be a liberal democrat, most likely. I'd say Obama or Biden or Richardson. The fact that Bush won in 04 and appointed 2 conservatives to the Supreme Court does not bode well for our industry. It's 4-4 now (liberals/conservatives) with one Justice (Kennedy) on the fence. He was a Reagan appointee, and conservative in some areas, but not in all areas. But it's not all about the highest court.

The views of judges who preside in all the courtrooms throughout the Federal judicial system are the largest determining factor in the long term health of the adult industry.

unfortunately so far none of them are worth a shit to me on both sides

i think i'm gonna write in kevin spacey thanks to you:winkwink:
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :thumbsup

That's not what I am saying--read my above post. But the Christian right (not necessarily Republicans in general) who are going after us. But no way are the Dems "on our side" either. It's a function of indirectly helping us through their platform.

I was just replying to your earlier post where u said something to the effect of (I only skimmed), all, we should vote Republican simply because our taxes would go up otherwise. And it's not that simple.

And then you have to weigh in the other factors, such as will our national defense get fucked over like it did with Clinton? Etc etc etc.

National Defense fucked over with Clinton? ROFL :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cut drastically in the past decade.

Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel and $50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. 14 (See Table 1.) The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. Because of such cuts, the Army has lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff, although its missions have increased significantly throughout the 1990s.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Mis...nse/BG1394.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Mis...es/1151506.gif

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

The boy is just a little sick - excuse him :winkwink:

Why don't you join up instead of pontificating on shit you know nothing about ignoramous?? :1orglaugh

Anyone that seriously argues that the Military was maintained or increased in size and resources is either insanely misinformed or just being silly.

you must be very young or very naive . . . . or both

Dont you have a monkey to fuck?

Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts. The statistics for America's defense during the Clinton years reveal the true feelings of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to a mere 50. There were reductions in tanks, armored vehicles, rocket launchers, special forces units, etc., etc., etc.

In addition, President Clinton loosened America's ban on the export of supercomputers and other high-technology products to Communist China; this allowed Beijing to improve the accuracy of its intercontinental missiles. A prime American beneficiary of this Clinton policy was Loral Space & Communications chairman Bernard Schwartz, the single largest contributor to the Clinton campaign and to the Democrat Party.

In 1996 it was discovered that Chinese spies had stolen nuclear design secrets from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the most damaging security breach in American history -- giving China the ability to produce and deliver nuclear warheads via submarines, mobile missiles, and long-range missiles. A 1998 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee concluded that foreign campaign contributions Clinton had received "were facilitated by individuals with extensive ties to China."

Apparently, while reducing our military capabilities here in the US, President Clinton was helping the Chinese build up their own capabilities. Not much has changed since the days when Clinton marched in London under the flag of North Vietnam.

I wouldn't say sick, I would just say a bit confused on what it would mean to "fuck up" your national defense.

A reduction of personal does very little to "fuck up" your national defense, especially as technology evolves. As our technology becomes more and more advanced we need fewer and fewer personal to run it and as such we should see a continual decline in personal. That's why the US has such high kill:death ratios, our technology rocks and we're needing fewer and fewer personal to use it. The only time that it is necessary to have a huge grunt force is when you go on the offense - like we mistakenly did in Iraq.

I remember when people got upset at Bush for his endorsement of closing 22 major military bases – ones here in the the United States – which of course is beyond horrible and will completely destroy our “national defense”! LMAO :1orglaugh

No Clinton fucked up our military due to more than just reductions.

LMAO :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I'm hoping that Michael Bloomberg and Al Gore decide to get into the race and then become the final 2. That would be a great race.

OMg..... :ugone2far :ugone2far :ugone2far :ugone2far :Hollering :Hollering :Hollering :Hollering :eyecrazy :eyecrazy :eyecrazy