Quote - Because of this sort of vacuous comment, I think I will ignore you from now on. At least Xeno usually puts a little thought behind his posts.

You're judging again.

Quote - > Quote - Because of this sort of vacuous comment, I think I will ignore you from now on. At least Xeno usually puts a little thought behind his posts.

You're judging again.

Observation and judgement are two vastly seperate things.....

Now...where'd I set my popcorn?

Quote - Observation and judgement are two vastly seperate things.

Not according to Webster.

Oh great! It's that time of year again!

Shonner, just so you know, if you even care -- to suggest there is no difference between reaching a conclusion based on evidence and jumping to one based on one's own presumptions is comparing apples and oranges. The former is a necessary part of life and survival, the latter is not, and is generally what most people mean when they suggest someone is being "judgmental."

Just checked back in.  Sorry, donquixote -- I don't have much time to contribute to this thread today, or even to do much more than to briefly glance at your last couple of posts.  I might come back later to respond in some detail when time permits -- but please don't take that as a set-in-stone promise.  sigh  There's a retrofit fire alarm system for an existing elementary school building that needs to be designed.  Not to mention other things that need testing..........

Hold the popcorn, RedHawk.  It's much better hot and fresh-popped than when it's a day old.  That's the thing about popcorn.  It goes stale fast. 

Quote - Shonner, just so you know, if you even care -- to suggest there is no difference between reaching a conclusion based on evidence and jumping to one based on one's own presumptions is comparing apples and oranges. The former is a necessary part of life and survival, the latter is not, and is generally what most people mean when they suggest someone is being "judgmental."

We can agree to disagree.  I thought you meant you were ignoring me?  I guess I misjudged you.

Quote - We can agree to disagree.  I thought you meant you were ignoring me?  I guess I misjudged you.

Yes. Sort of. What I actually said was that I "think" I will ignore you, but I then decided (much to my chagrin) to make another attempt to see if you might be able to acknowledge a point on the subject of "judgment."

I'm sorry to have bothered you, and am becoming increasingly sorry to have wasted my time.

Quote - We can agree to disagree.  I thought you meant you were ignoring me?

:laugh:

Hey, miikaawaadizi, didn't I say "this is now going to degenerate into mindless, unsupported argument for its own sake?"

See what I mean?

Speaking of mindless, purposeless discourse: Have any of you written your legislators yet?

Who in California would read it?

Quote - Hey, miikaawaadizi, didn't I say "this is now going to degenerate into mindless, unsupported argument for its own sake?"

See what I mean?

A self-fulfilled prophecy.

This is ever so slightly off topic, but all my life I've come across people who simply enjoy being annoying. I wonder what their satisfaction is? Do you suppose it simply gives them a sense of power when they are able to get a reaction out of others? I hope not. That would be so pathetic.

And hey, has anyone noticed an insect buzzing around around here? No? Okay. Just checking.

Quote - Speaking of mindless, purposeless discourse: Have any of you written your legislators yet?

I thought written work relating to sado-masochistc activities even between consenting adults was being outlawed?

I have no idea what you're talking about, if that was a joke I apologize for not getting it.  Was wondering if the hot feelings are strictly limited to anonymous discussion board catfighting, or something that actually affects the real world, that's all.

I wish I could say the idea of writing to politicians being an exercise in sado-masochistic behaviour was "entirely" a joke.

People always seem to have this idealistic idea that it's a worthwhile endeavour, but they generally tend to forget the basic fact of political life - to stay employed, politicians do what looks popular, what's "right" is only a vague idea they toss aside the first time they see negative opinion poll results.

No-one wants to do something that will put them out of a job, politicians aren't somehow more "ethical" in that respect than anyone else.  One letter makes no difference to their opinion of how popular they are - neither does a thousand, or a million, because politicians know that less than half of those letters will actually translate into votes come "job evaluation" time, and of the ones that do, more than half of those people will have either forgotten all about the issue, or will let themselves be blindly led along by the nose..

So contacting these parasites on society ends up being nothing more than an attempt to assuage your own guilt at not doing anything worthwhile - anyone with sense knows that the most they're going to get back is a vague appreciation for commenting and how their thoughts will be noted, and that's it.

Hence - it's a sado-masochistic exercise :)

Disclaimer: Some people claim I may be a tad cynical when it comes to my opinions regarding those semi-evolved pseudo-simian sacks of putrescent protoplasmic slime who make political pundits appear to be productive members of society by comparison that call themselves politicians.

Ya think??

Quote - Speaking of mindless, purposeless discourse: Have any of you written your legislators yet?

On this issue, no.  On others, yes.

*"semi-evolved pseudo-simian sacks of putrescent protoplasmic slime "

• LOL :P

Quote - People always seem to have this idealistic idea that it's a worthwhile endeavour, but they generally tend to forget the basic fact of political life - to stay employed, politicians do what looks popular, what's "right" is only a vague idea they toss aside the first time they see negative opinion poll results.

No-one wants to do something that will put them out of a job, politicians aren't somehow more "ethical" in that respect than anyone else.  One letter makes no difference to their opinion of how popular they are - neither does a thousand, or a million, because politicians know that less than half of those letters will actually translate into votes come "job evaluation" time, and of the ones that do, more than half of those people will have either forgotten all about the issue, or will let themselves be blindly led along by the nose..

You are at least partially mistaken. And in fact, you have kind of contradicted yourself. You said that all the politicians care about is staying employed (as politicians), and respond to only what is popular, but then suggested even a million letters have no effect.

While there are actions that may at times have a greater impact than simply writing a letter, all the politicians I have known personally, and there have been several, pay a great deal of attention to various communications from their constituents, not so much every individual communication, but the weight of their constituents' opinions. And those who take the time and trouble to write, or call, are understood by the politicians to be the type of people who are also busy trying to persuade their families, their friends, and their neighbors -- some of whom also vote.

Further, though there are always plenty of bad players, there are also politicians who stand up for what they believe and think is right even when it hurts them considerably. Because they do not always have their praises sung for them by the mass media, or only get major coverage when they do the wrong thing, or because you do not agree with their point of view, does not mean they are not often trying to do the right thing, as they see it.

These are not baseless, idealistic opinions, but observations I have made over many, many years. If you want to blame someone for the goings on of representative government, first look at yourself in the mirror. It is political activism, or the lack thereof, that often determines who stays in power and who goes.

My fear is that at some point in the future, some bureaucrat somewhere will take all this to the extreme and determine that merely possessing an image of a naked child, regardless of pose or circumstance, will be deemed as a punishable offense under federal law.

At that point, all of us can be brought up on charges and sent to prison!

That is, all of us who simply have a naked little Maddie or Laura thumbnail (and many other MilGirl thumbs) sitting in the Character folder waiting to be selected as models for some project can be guilty of possessing images of nude children.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least if we get to this point.

puts mod hat on  I don't mind this discussion...if we can take it off of religion and back on the subject at hand, folks ;)

Interesting point samhal.  When I heard that hanna montana chick did a "artful" nude shoot even though she was only 15, I was like 'what on Earth is happening here, she's just a kid'.

Maybe we could make this issue go away if we just banned cameras of all types.  You might think I'm joking, but I have a feeling if teens keep snapping nude pictures of themselves and sending them to their friends or putting them on the net, at the least we are going to have a minimum age of 18 to own and operate a camera in the US.

Quote - Interesting point samhal.  When I heard that hanna montana chick did a "artful" nude shoot even though she was only 15, I was like 'what on Earth is happening here, she's just a kid'.

Ok, first things first, IT WAS HER BACK.  
Second, Miley Cyrus has since posted WORSE photos of herself on her myspace page. 

But, that leads into your second point.  I don't think taking cameras out of the hands of kids is a good idea...but, I do think that parents need to take responsibility for their kids.

Bans only succeed in sending things underground, and people make a lot more money selling them than they would legally.  You only have to look at the UK to see how "ban everything" populist knee-jerk laws don't work.

Especially when it comes to teens, who seem to be hardwired to do anything they're told they shouldn't.

("Nerdstress"???  Is that like "Geekette" with pocket protectors? :) )

All I heard about the first shoot is she had a sheet draped over her.  I heard she had been doing more questionable things but at that point I figured she is going to be the next Britney Spears/Lindesy Lohan.  Disney should cancel her contract and toss her away to another company that is willing to deal with an implosion waiting to happen and parents should start steering their kids away from her.

I agree that parents really need to take responsiblility for their kids, but it isn't happening with this generation.  Easy web access plus a smutty society plus a teen craving attention is a bad combo.  They haven't morally matured and they are looking to have fun so putting a camera in their hands is one of the worst things you can do for them.  At the least get the cell phones with text and cameras out of kids hands.

This is one of the few things I'm actually a little conflicted on.  I totally believe that it is the parent's responsibility to raise a kid, not the government's.  However there are a ton of parents that are dropping the ball these days and frankly I don't think the schools are helping the situation at all.  So we can't count on parents and we can't count on the government yet if we don't want our society to implode as the aforementioned actresses, someone is going to have to do something and do it well.  However if we leave it up to the parents or the government, I really think that implosion is going to happen in a generation or two.

(I will own up to owning pocket protectors.  Have you ever had a Sharpie explode in the front breast pocket of a white shirt???  It SUCKS!)  :laugh: 

Parents can't control their kids because half the tools they had available to them have been banned, and every kid nowadays knows the magic words "I'll call the cops on you" which shuts any dispute down flat.

Which is not to say all kids are bad, there are a good number of them who've learned honesty, integrity, honour, and community all on their lonesome, without any guidance from anything other than their own ability for self-identification.

But yeah, it's not gonna happen that way enough, and osmosis is too fickle to cover the slack.

Cynic mode warning.

Society has gotten too big and too unwieldy, community has gone down the drain, honour has gone out the window, both derided as "outmoded" and "outdated".  The sheeple are controlled via FUD by those who have a vested interest (i.e. their self-interest) in keeping people as sheeple.  Social disorder works to their advantage, they're not likely to want to do anything to reduce it - if it goes away, it's harder to stampede the sheeple into the ramp up to the kill sheds of "it's for the best" legislation.

Personally, I figure there's a revolution of sorts coming in the next two decades, as the two "sides" clash - individualists vs conformists.

Got to love the cyclic nature of history and civilization :)

(I've had a Bic go psycho in a front pocket of a pair of cream slacks, that's not much fun ...

But as a card carrying BOFH, pocket protectors are a no-no, I have a rep to live down to :P)

Quote - All I heard about the first shoot is she had a sheet draped over her.  I heard she had been doing more questionable things but at that point I figured she is going to be the next Britney Spears/Lindesy Lohan.  Disney should cancel her contract and toss her away to another company that is willing to deal with an implosion waiting to happen and parents should start steering their kids away from her.

I agree that parents really need to take responsiblility for their kids, but it isn't happening with this generation.  Easy web access plus a smutty society plus a teen craving attention is a bad combo.  They haven't morally matured and they are looking to have fun so putting a camera in their hands is one of the worst things you can do for them.  At the least get the cell phones with text and cameras out of kids hands.

This is one of the few things I'm actually a little conflicted on.  I totally believe that it is the parent's responsibility to raise a kid, not the government's.  However there are a ton of parents that are dropping the ball these days and frankly I don't think the schools are helping the situation at all.  So we can't count on parents and we can't count on the government yet if we don't want our society to implode as the aforementioned actresses, someone is going to have to do something and do it well.  However if we leave it up to the parents or the government, I really think that implosion is going to happen in a generation or two.

Yes, there was a sheet.  She happened to be topless, her father was there, there were other adults in the room, and she had a sheet wrapped around her.  And, you can see her back.  She wears clothes onstage that shows more, and both her AND her father decided to freak out about it, but only after they were scrutinized by the public.  Which, you know, seriously...If it were my family, I would have stood up and said "They are beautiful photos, Annie Leibovitz did an EXCELLENT job, and there is nothing wrong with photos of someone's back."

We can't count on parents because no one holds them accountable.  This generation of parents wants to party and be their kids' best friends....and that's not how you parent.  My mom and I rarely do "hang out" things.  Sure, we do mother/daughter things, many of which end in a fight because we are too much alike, LOL, but I'm not going to take her to CyGamez with me to sit and have a Rock Band tourney, and I wouldn't want to go with her to her little scrapbooking meet thingies.  We cook together, sometimes do crafty things together, and we do photography together.  As a parent, you have to find something to do that's together time.  We as an american society suck at families.  We work long hours to buy shit we don't need, spend money for stuff no one in their right mind needs (seriously....a robotized vacuum???  Are we too busy to VACUUM?), and still find time to ignore our children.  And then get all surprised when they're posting tata shots on MySpace for their boyfriends.  But, they're not getting the ideas on their own.  Look at who some of the most popular young female celebrities are and what they're celebrated for.  There's too much non-quality entertainment, so our (collective) children are emulating the utter crap they see on t.v.  Which is sooooooooooooooo sad.

 What's a BOFH?

Parents responsibility? Maybe to a degree. What about the story recently of a highschool girl taking a picture of herself (her genitals I believe) with her cell phone and sending it to other students?

The way I remember the article, they got her on child porn charges (on herself?!) and plan on bringing similar charges on everyone that recieved the picure. To me this is a system getting out of whack.

Not sure parental responsibility comes into strong play here...even some straight and narrow kids will do stupid things sometimes without being able to explain why they did it.

Of course, Miley Cyrus is probably a different situation altogether.

Just sayin'.

Quote - Parents responsibility? Maybe to a degree. What about the story recently of a highschool girl taking a picture of herself (her genitals I believe) with her cell phone and sending it to other students?

The way I remember the article, they got her on child porn charges (on herself?!) and plan on bringing similar charges on everyone that recieved the picure. To me this is a system getting out of whack.

Not sure parental responsibility comes into strong play here...even some straight and narrow kids will do stupid things sometimes without being able to explain why they did it.

Of course, Miley Cyrus is probably a different situation altogether.

Just sayin'.

Saying that the parents have no responsibility is a crock of b.s.  1. No one NEEDS a cell phone.  They are a tool, nothing more.  No high-school kid needs one.  When I was in school, and needed to call my parents, the office had a phone.  We used it.  When I was at work, and needed to call my parents, the office had a phone.  We used it.  When I was at a friends' house, and needed to call my parents, they had a phone.  We used it.  I have a cell phone.  I'm 28.  I have text and pix messaging on my phone, and, quite honestly, sometimes I wish I didn't.  Remember back in the day when pretty much not a week went by and some jackass was posting something with a link, and it was to....let's just say it was to a freaking gross image.  Well, those photos have made their way to pix message forwards.  All it takes is for 1 young adult to get one, think it's hillarious (or think that it would be hillarious to send it on), send it to their younger brother/sister, and BOOM, it's all over the school.  
I know quite a few teenagers who have access to cell phones.  They are not allowed to take them inside the school.  They are to leave them in their vehicles.  They have a certain amount of minutes they can use, and then they're cut off for the month.  They don't have camera phones, they don't have text messaging.  Why you would buy a teenager in high school a CAMERA PHONE is beyond me.  Sure, they're fun.  THEY'RE EXPENSIVE.  What happened to making kids work for what they had?  What happened to teaching kids responsibility?

"Civilization"?

Edit: Forgot the cynic warning message, sorry.

Quote - Samhal

Parents responsibility? Maybe to a degree. What about the story recently of a highschool girl taking a picture of herself (her genitals I believe) with her cell phone and sending it to other students?

The way I remember the article, they got her on child porn charges (on herself?!) and plan on bringing similar charges on everyone that recieved the picure. To me this is a system getting out of whack.

I heard of one of those stories.  The feds I think went to the girl's house and the parents said to them "what's the big deal?"  I don't think the system is out of whack so much because there are good reasons for having some laws to protect against child pornography.  However I will concied that their could be a gray area if someone forwarded the picture to a bunch of friends and not all of them wanted to see it.

Some would argue that there is a certain amount of objectification going on and anyone at that age who just takes a picture of themselves and sends it to the class needs help.

Quote - JenX

She wears clothes onstage that shows more, and both her AND her father decided to freak out about it, but only after they were scrutinized by the public.

Emphasis mine.  I think I see the problem here.  They pretty much agreed with you Jen until the poop hit the ceiling fan and then got all freaked out about it because they feel like they had to.

BTW, camera phones are getting cheap.  I had to upgrade mine earlier this year and it only cost about 40 dollars with a plan.  It's the service plan which costs the most and how the cell phone companies make their money. 

Now if you go with one of the better phones, that'll cost you some money.   And I have a theory why parents buy them: it's easier than putting up with a teenager whining at you for several years about not having a cell phone.

Don't disagree at all. Absolutely parents have a pivotal role to play in a childs development.

However parents are being overwhelmed today. My parents had it easy. When I went to school (not saying how long ago) there was no cell phones, heck there wasn't even sex-ed. Health (of sorts in H.S. yes), but NOT sex-ed in any grade. Now it's taught in middleschool in some places.

Back then an R rating meant something, 18 or over only and there was no PG-13. Youngs kids today absorb R movies like candy (don't kid yourself thinking they don't) ala cable tv, if not at home, then someone elses. I won't even get into the internet issues. When I was in school, there was no gay rights or gay marriages...even the concept of it was foreign. Now its becoming part of the curriculum.

Right direction? Wrong direction? In some cases yes, in others no. Who knows...you tell me.

But society as a whole dictates the direction we move in and it's not hard to see the direction we're moving in. What about the Folsum Street Fair in San Francisco? Open nudity and outright sex, gay or otherwise, in broad daylight...and is sanctioned by the city itself! Whoa! In my parents day this would have indicated to them the end of the world was at hand.

And this is just from 15-20 years ago to today. Can't wait to see what the next 15-20 years or so brings! 

Serious question here: Do you think pedophiles will slowly win their rights too?  Don't laugh. Gay rights had NO chance either just a decade ago.

Parents have a MUCH harder job today than they did, and it's just not getting any easier.

Again, just sayin'.

Quote - Serious question here: Do you think pedophiles will slowly win their rights too?  Don't laugh. Gay rights had NO chance either just a decade ago.

Holy crap.  What a terrible analogy.  I mean, wow.  Terrible.

Quote -  What's a BOFH?

Bastard Operator from Hell

Let me start with this....I'm more than slightly offended that you're comparing the rights of pedophiles (criminals....and the BOTTOM of the barrel as far as prisoners are concerned) with the rights of homosexuals (not criminals, but still the bottom of the barrel as far as society is concerned).  Do you really think that the Folsum Street Fair is that different from Mardi Gras?  There are outlandish costumes, obscene amounts of drinking, nudity, and debauchery at BOTH.  The Folsum Street Fair has 2 things against it (media-wise).  1. - It's newer. (Hey, it's only 25 years old!)  and 2. - It's a Gay fair.  OMFG (sarcasm).  If there's open sex, it's not the problem of the organizers...it's the people themselves who are doing wrong.  It's like saying that the organizers of the Woodstock '98 are to blame for having a festivale where it was possible for women to be raped.  And, as for "gay rights" in curriculum....IF it's brought up, there should be no mention of actual sex (as in fornication, the act of sex) by the teacher.  There is something to be said for schools who teach tolerance as opposed to completely ignoring the situation.  There has always been gay families, it's just that a lot of them feel safe to be vocal now.  And blaming ANYTHING to do with homosexuality with parents having a hard time is not only wrong, but completely and totally missing the point.

Parents have a harder time because they create a harder time for themselves.  They start in early childhood, plopping the tot in front of some t.v. show designed for infants.  Then they move up to the toddler shows.  and so on, and so on.  Electricity bills are astronomical because people have the t.v. on all damn day.  Why?  Entertain the kidlets.  Keep them out of my hair so I can read a book/clean the house/garden/play online all day.  No one includes their children anymore in their daily activities.  Kids have PLAYDATES.  Are you freaking kidding me?  When I was a kid, you went outside.  If no one was outside, you knocked on doors.  And now, playdates are supervised.  WTF??  Every parent I've talked to about why THEY go to playdates?  They want to keep their kids safe from pedophiles.  You know...your child has less of a chance of being molestedy by a pedophile YOU DON'T KNOW than they do by your sibling or parent.  And, you'd practically have to make your kid pedophile bait these days for someone YOU DON'T KNOW to take them and molest them.  Not to say that it doesn't happen, but I'm talking probability, here.  I WAS molested as a child.  I'm not trying to minimize this in ANY way.  But, come on, folks.  The kids I went to school with were WAY more screwed up than I was as far as sex goes, and, statistically, I should have been the class whore!  You know WHY I was a good kid?  I had PARENTS WHO CARED (sometimes too much, lol).  I got grounded.  I got my mouth slapped once in a while.  I got the things I really loved taken away from me.  Hell, I spent 6 weeks with nothing in my room but a bed, dressers and 3 books (not including schoolbooks) for getting a 2-day suspension at school.  Do I look back and shudder and cry at that?  No, I look back, and laugh, because, frankly, the things that were taken from me...trivial physical property, and nothing more.  So, what if I didn't get to annoy my sisters with Green Jelly's "3 Little Pigs" at 3am?  That's why they call it a punishment.  It's making you do something you don't want to do, to make you think of what NOT to do.

 I meant no offense and didn't mean to insinuate the two are related in any way,  but to offer an anology of what is possible against seemingly  impossible odds. Today - 10 years ago...big difference in gay acceptance! More power to them!

I personally have NO issues with gays or their rights in any form. They are consenting adults and that is cool with me. Can children consent in similar fashion? I think not!

Using the above analogy, do I think pedophiles can make the same acceptance gains as well? I certainly hope not, but seeing what is possible against seemingly impossibly odds, I'm not going to be betting any money.

Oh boy.

"And blaming ANYTHING to do with homosexuality with parents having a hard time is not only wrong, but completely and totally missing the point."

Me thinks you are totally missing my point as well and on that note, I hereby recant everything I have written. 

Quote - Can children consent in similar fashion? I think not!

But a Supreme Court judge will think so one day, sooner than you expect.

In my defense, that was the only example you used.  

Kids absorb R-rated movies...don't let your kids watch R-rated movies.
Kids absorb violent and/or sexual lyrics in songs....don't let your kids listen to those songs.
Kids absorb sexual and violent themes in video games...don't let your kids play those games.

The difficulty of parenting hasn't changed in 20 years...the laziness has.  My parents were fully aware of the things I did as a kid, and we had LONG conversations about everything, regardless of whether or not they liked what I did.  I don't understand what's so hard about taking an interest in your child.  I do it with my son, and plan to do with my future children.  

Kids absorb intelligent conversation...so have one with your kids.
Kids absorb positive themes in film, music, and games...so open your kids' minds and expose them to culture.
Kids absorb history, science, and art....so take them to museums, zoos, and cultural centers.

There is a lot of stuff out there that makes it easy to be a parent...it's just that parents choose not to use these resources. 

Quote - I personally have NO issues with gays or their rights in any form. They are consenting adults and that is cool with me. Can children consent in similar fashion? I think not!

Using the above analogy, do I think pedophiles can make the same acceptance gains as well? I certainly hope not, but seeing what is possible against seemingly impossibly odds, I'm not going to be betting any money.

No, and I'll tell you why...It doesn't matter how big of a taboo homosexuality was 20 years ago, people will do anything to save their children.  If a man kills or assaults someone attempting to rape/molest their child, they either get a lighter or no sentence.  Pedophiles are a hot button everywhere...20 years ago, it was more likely to be swept under the rug than make the 5 o'clock news.  Today, everyone is up in arms about it.

I hope you are right.

Everyone needs to understand that this guy was also on parole so he basically violated the terms of his probation.  This law won't stick if there are no victims in the scene.  I know that sounds bad but do you realize how many sites are out there that contain this type of cartoons and or 3d Images of minors?  Quite a bit and they are still out there.  If the the feds were so worried about this, they would of been gone by now.

Quote - > Quote - Can children consent in similar fashion? I think not!

But a Supreme Court judge will think so one day, sooner than you expect.

They couldn't "consent" in ancient Greece or Rome, either......but they weren't given the option.  There are lots of things that infants can't "consent" to these days -- but it's done to them anyway.  So, if we're in the soup for an inch: then, logically, we might as well go the whole distance.  Either way: children are a mere commodity -- to exist or not to exist at our own whim and convenience.  So why not use them for other purposes, too: in the same fashion that one would use any other similar home-grown agricultural resource?  Think about it.....it's no worse than what Jonathan Swift suggested to the elites of his day in A Modest Proposal.  I don't understand why anyone could possibly object, or could feel that such a suggestion is in any way unreasonable.

On some of the other topics that have been touched upon since I last posted to this thread......I'm nowhere near as politically correct as some of you painfully and self-consciously bend over backwards in straining yourselves to be.....in order to firmly establish the credibility of your "I'm hip and with the program" bona fides.  But we don't want to get into too much of a flame-fest in the Poser forum, do we.......so it'll all have to wait for a different discussion venue.

You're right, Shonner.  We're likely just a Supreme Court jusitice or two away from such a decision.  No doubt, if we manage to get the "right" (he says in quotation marks) man elected this time around -- we'll see a lot of things happening "sooner than we expected".  Or wanted.

There are only two Fed officers in San Diego to go after the 4,500 pervs.  There is too much paperwork to do and the jails are already full.  And the judges are on the side of the criminal.  And it's going to get a lot worse before things even begin to get better.

Quote - We're likely just a Supreme Court jusitice or two away from such a decision.  No doubt, if we manage to get the "right" (he says in quotation marks) man elected this time around -- we'll see a lot of things happening "sooner than we expected".  Or wanted.

Yup. Like it or not...it's coming.

Quote - This law won't stick if there are no victims in the scene.

While that is certainly one opinion, it is not a very realistic one.  The current version of the law being discussed is based around obscenity law, which is pretty thoroughly explored in case history.
http://www.findlaw.com/01topics/06constitutional/cases.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity

Before people run off thinking this body of law does not have any teeth, you may want to familiarize yourselves with exactly how it's worded and how it works.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.151:

*SEC. 501. FINDINGS.*Congress finds the following:

*(1) Obscenity and child pornography are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) (obscenity), or New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (child pornography) and thus may be prohibited.

[...]
`(b) ADDITIONAL OFFENSES- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--*

`(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

`(B) is obscene; or

`(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

*`(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

Quote - "You're right, Shonner."

The Greek civilization died out.  The Roman civilization died out.  And America is simply only repeating what's already been done in history.