PR.com: “Do you find that the climate of the adult industry changes when there is a Republican administration versus Democratic?”
Jenna Jameson: “Absolutely. The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry and I wish that Clinton would run again. I would love to have him back in office. I would love to have Al Gore in office. When Republicans are in office, the problem is, a lot of times they try to put their crosshairs on the adult industry, to make a point. It’s sad, when there are so many different things that are going on in the world: war, and people are dying of genocide…I look forward to another Democrat being in office. It just makes the climate so much better for us, and I know that once all our troops come home, things are going to be better and I think that getting Bush out of office is the most important thing right now.” Link
Hat Tip Brody File
This quote should come in handy in the generals. Maybe something like “Hillary: It takes a Village to Save the Porn Industry”
May 17th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I saw this one earlier. At least Monica hasn’t endorsed her yet
May 17th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Absolutely priceless.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Oh wow. Wow, wow, wow.
Priceless is right.
Hava
http://mittforpresident.wordpress.com/
May 17th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I wish this would get played on CBS, ABC or NBC. It would cost Democrats a lot of the Conservative Democrats who still make up 13% of the electorate.
May 17th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I do agree, though, with the general point. There needs to be a lot less regulation of pornography…actually, none.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
no regulation of Porn? at LEAST limit it to over 18
we cannot see the full impact porn is having on society at this time.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
“…we cannot see the full impact porn is having on society at this time.”
So much potential for humor, so little time.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Porn does hurt society, hence the push for regulating it.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
You’re talking like a collectivist, JasonJack.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
and why aren’t pro-life people?
May 17th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
What?
May 17th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
That was totally irrelevant, I’m saying that by saying that something hurts society, you are putting society above individual wants and happiness.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
It’s pretty ironic that Hillary’s “It Takes a Village” mumbo-jumbo is being mocked here… And then posters turn around and talk about the need for more Nanny State government regulation.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Also, the porn star Mary Carey, who ran for lieutenant governor of California a couple years ago, has attended GOP fundraisers and claims to be a Republican. Another pornstar, Mimi Miyagi, ran for governor of Nevada as a Republican. Admittedly, I’m not exactly up to date on my pornographic political affiliations, but I’m sure there are plenty more…
This story is humorous and all, but come on. There are plenty of perfectly reasonable reasons to detest Hillary Clinton and her husband. This is just silly.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I agree, Hunter. I think both the Republicans and the Democrats are collectivists, just with different means.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
What’s wrong with putting society ahead of greedy evil destructive individuals?
What’s liberty worth without order and a standard of decency.
May 17th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Because society is a collection of individuals.
Whose standard of decency?
May 17th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” ~Hillary Clinton
…
May 17th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
The traditional sense of decency is arrived at by a generations of long attempts at finding what works as opposed to what we think might work. Obviously that’s the place to start.
Society is a culture, a history, and a group of families who share these things. Humans are social animals (of the herd variety). We evolved as a herd animal and we still function in herd-like ways. What we do and our welfare depends partially on others. It is logical that society should be exist as the embodiment of the herd.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Wow. Just wow. You really have a very, very similar philosophy to the Democrats. It’s just your politics that are different.
You both condemn the individual in favor of society. How is that not collectivism, the philosophy of Democrats?
May 17th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I’m a federalist. I general see each state as a separate society and would allow each state great latitude in regulating individuals. I would allow the federal government very little role in regulating individuals.
I think Democrats see collectives where they don’t exist (say the entirety of the United States or the World or some such nonsense). In my ideal system your libertarians friends could go around smoking pot, and watching porn in Massachusetts while in Mississippi those things might be punishable by being placed in stocks.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
What’s all this talk about herds? No, thanks — give me rugged individualism. That has always been the essence of America, as opposed to the “public-spirited” societies of, say, Europe. You seem liked you’d be a lot better off over there, econ grad.
May 17th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Hunter, I’d have to say I view rugged individualism as a rare trait, too rare to form a society around. Most people will always be followers. It’s an observable fact and explanation for why leaders get more money (they’re rare). European nations mostly departed from their traditional cultures which basically began their death clock.
I’m basically an old fashioned conservative (think David Hume).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume#Political_theory
May 17th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
It’s interesting the way political philosophies evolve over time. I would probably consider myself a classical liberal with a soft spot for the anti-utopianism and realism of Oakeshottian conservatism. I would definitely have been on the pro-Enlightenment side of, well, the Enlightenment.
May 18th, 2007 at 9:30 am
No, thanks give me rugged individualism. That has always been the essence of America, as opposed to the “public-spirited” societies of, say, Europe
Which is why your rugged individualists allowed gay marriage, pornography, abortion, easy divorce, and so on. NOT>
May 19th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Huh? Yes, I would allow those things because they are individual choices. Give me a break! Stop trying to control other peoples’ lives.