Richard K Miller wrote: > But there were other issues on which Pete and I differed. Two that > came up were internet pornography and social security. He's in favor > of offering porn filtering to consumers who want it, but no government > involvement. I, OTOH, think the negative societal effects of > pornography are big enough that it ought to be treated more like a > drug. (I.e., the government doesn't let people enjoy cocaine in the > privacy of their own homes, nor child porn for that matter.) On > social security, he seemed apt to keep the program and other > "entitlements", while I'd be apt to get rid of it or completely > privatize it.
This is what I love about conservatives. People can protect themselves from poverty but not from porn. So the government needs to raise my taxes to create ineffective filters(John Dougal is an idiot) so people can't harm themselves with porn, but government needs to stop giving money to poor people because people starving to death is not harful to society. Kyle /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
