Robin Carnahan is the classic example of a politician whose only claim to fame is her last name. Furthermore, her ongoing liberal partisan exploits in ignoring the facts and rewriting ballot initiative summaries in an overt attempt to destroy their voter appeal are an embarrassment to our state.
For anyone questioning the harm of pornography/"adult entertainment" upon society this link takes you to an article that nicely summarizes many studies as well as provides you with references for further research:,
That aside, I have to admit that I'm always amazed that anyone would actually argue that the sex industry is not harmful to society. I would be interested to hear how anyone would argue otherwise.
C'mon, Ryan Davis! Why no explanation in this article citing the rationale of those supporting this bill? Talk about one-sided pseudo journalism.
Matching Mr. Davis' standard for laziness I'm simply going to paste in my comments from the Ping Poll explaining anything to limit the impact of so-called "adult" (more accurately juvenile) entertainment is a good thing:
"The porn industry caters to perpetual adolescents that have never grown up and understood their sexuality in a mature context. There are endless studies showing porn users to be more likely to rape and abuse women, sexually molest children, have STDs, etc.. but yet we as a society refuse to acknowledge the pathetic condition of porn users and their impact upon us.
The rampant porn available today is yet another sign of a society which allows and actually encourages immaturity in adults, whether it be concerning matters economical or sexual. Though often excused in the name of freedom, this vain pursuit actually leaves many slaves to their adolescent narcissism and the rest of us forced to pay the price of their bondage."
I believe the definition of a sexually orientated business has traditionally included any entity that engages in the production or sale of sexually explicit films, magazines, or other materials. These of course contain photographs or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal.
This bill of course should include the prohibition of the sale of such materials by businesses, such as convenience stores (magazines) and cable companies (movies), that otherwise sell goods or services not falling under the definition of sexually explicit materials.
The porn industry caters to perpetual adolescents that have never grown up and understood their sexuality in a mature context. There are endless studies showing porn users to be more likely to rape and abuse women, sexually molest children, have STDs, etc.. but yet we as a society refuse to acknowledge the pathetic condition of porn users and their impact upon us.
The rampant porn available today is yet another sign of a society which allows and actually encourages immaturity in adults, whether it be concerning matters economical or sexual. Though often excused in the name of freedom, this vain pursuit actually leaves many slaves to their adolescent narcissism and the rest forced to pay the price of their bondage.
It's interesting to me that the overwhelming majority of military veterans as well as those current serving in our armed forces are opposed to homosexuals openly serving in the military. Doesn't it stand to reason that there is more than just alleged bigotry at work here?
It is also telling that the vast majority of those advocating for ending DA/DT seem to be more focused upon social engineering than creating a more effective military. In fact, many are members of groups that otherwise are non-supportive of our military at best. Do they really have the military's best interest at heart?
We should also ask ourselves how such a move would impact future recruiting? Do you really believe that dropping DA/DT will encourage more young men and women to enter our armed forces?
It would seem that there are numerous issues that should dissuade American's from supporting such a move, particularly when the ending of DA/DT is overwhelmingly driven by arguments that at root are ideological and largely focused upon continued efforts to legitimize homosexuality.
Any comments concerning the statistic that 41% of births in the county were to unwed mothers? Obviously the illegitimacy issue isn't just with teen mothers.
When are we going to wake up and realize that the problem lies with our societies doomed attempt to separate sex from procreation? The mechanisms of the hedonistic sexual lifestyle are readily available in every Wal-mart and local convenience store and yet unwed women keep getting pregnant. Can we ever connect the dots and understand that the more society presents sex as merely a recreational activity and the harder you push items to prevent pregnancy the more illegitimate babies we keep having? Ever think maybe it's time to stop the insanity? 40 years of the contraceptive mentality have brought us only more STD's, abortions, abused children and women, and broken homes.
How about a world where we place sex back in it's proper context; a loving life-long committed marital relationship between a man and a women who are prepared to commit together to raise a child?
If a Church's teachings are true and if scientific theories are true there can be no contradiction between them, presuming that both religious believers as well as scientists do recognize the boundaries and limitations of their particular focus. So much of the misunderstandings today that lead to conflict occur because scientists seek to teach religion while religious fundamentalists and other believers seek to mold science to their beliefs. Cardinal Schonborn, in accurately proclaiming the teachings of the Catholic Faith, is a role model for those of us who understand that both science and religion originate from one Truth and work in unison to enlighten man through the appropriate application of their respective disciplines.
Dawkins is a classic example of someone who approaches science with pre-conceived beliefs, or in this case non-beliefs, as Dawkins puts great "faith", paradoxically, in an adamant rejection of a belief in God. Dawkins' theory of biological evolution is necessitated by his unbelief in God which of course is unsubstantiated by facts. For your own review of Dawkin's "faith" I would refer you to God Is No Delusion by Thomas Crean, O.P.
Meanwhile, in the interest of time, why don't you explain your own answers to my questions above and we'll save the book reviews for another day.
sjskeptic, who made the "definite scientific rules" guiding evolution and how, working off of your definition of "theory", do you prove your theory as fact? If you cannot, does not your "theory" then fall under your definition of what you accuse the "religious" of using?
Don't rules by definition require a rule maker to make them? Who is this rule maker and how do you again prove your "theory" factually? Please enlighten us.
Carnahan makes campaign stop in St. Joseph
Robin Carnahan is the classic example of a politician whose only claim to fame is her last name. Furthermore, her ongoing liberal partisan exploits in ignoring the facts and rewriting ballot initiative summaries in an overt attempt to destroy their voter appeal are an embarrassment to our state.
March 1, 2010 at 12:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Critics attack proposed adult entertainment regulations
For anyone questioning the harm of pornography/"adult entertainment" upon society this link takes you to an article that nicely summarizes many studies as well as provides you with references for further research:,
https://www.againstpornography.org/so...
That aside, I have to admit that I'm always amazed that anyone would actually argue that the sex industry is not harmful to society. I would be interested to hear how anyone would argue otherwise.
February 10, 2010 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Critics attack proposed adult entertainment regulations
C'mon, Ryan Davis! Why no explanation in this article citing the rationale of those supporting this bill? Talk about one-sided pseudo journalism.
Matching Mr. Davis' standard for laziness I'm simply going to paste in my comments from the Ping Poll explaining anything to limit the impact of so-called "adult" (more accurately juvenile) entertainment is a good thing:
"The porn industry caters to perpetual adolescents that have never grown up and understood their sexuality in a mature context. There are endless studies showing porn users to be more likely to rape and abuse women, sexually molest children, have STDs, etc.. but yet we as a society refuse to acknowledge the pathetic condition of porn users and their impact upon us.
The rampant porn available today is yet another sign of a society which allows and actually encourages immaturity in adults, whether it be concerning matters economical or sexual. Though often excused in the name of freedom, this vain pursuit actually leaves many slaves to their adolescent narcissism and the rest of us forced to pay the price of their bondage."
February 10, 2010 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Should the state put new restrictions on the adult entertainment industry?
I believe the definition of a sexually orientated business has traditionally included any entity that engages in the production or sale of sexually explicit films, magazines, or other materials. These of course contain photographs or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal.
This bill of course should include the prohibition of the sale of such materials by businesses, such as convenience stores (magazines) and cable companies (movies), that otherwise sell goods or services not falling under the definition of sexually explicit materials.
February 9, 2010 at 3:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Should the state put new restrictions on the adult entertainment industry?
"Adult" entertainment. Give me a break!
The porn industry caters to perpetual adolescents that have never grown up and understood their sexuality in a mature context. There are endless studies showing porn users to be more likely to rape and abuse women, sexually molest children, have STDs, etc.. but yet we as a society refuse to acknowledge the pathetic condition of porn users and their impact upon us.
The rampant porn available today is yet another sign of a society which allows and actually encourages immaturity in adults, whether it be concerning matters economical or sexual. Though often excused in the name of freedom, this vain pursuit actually leaves many slaves to their adolescent narcissism and the rest forced to pay the price of their bondage.
February 9, 2010 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Should the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy be overturned?
It's interesting to me that the overwhelming majority of military veterans as well as those current serving in our armed forces are opposed to homosexuals openly serving in the military. Doesn't it stand to reason that there is more than just alleged bigotry at work here?
It is also telling that the vast majority of those advocating for ending DA/DT seem to be more focused upon social engineering than creating a more effective military. In fact, many are members of groups that otherwise are non-supportive of our military at best. Do they really have the military's best interest at heart?
We should also ask ourselves how such a move would impact future recruiting? Do you really believe that dropping DA/DT will encourage more young men and women to enter our armed forces?
It would seem that there are numerous issues that should dissuade American's from supporting such a move, particularly when the ending of DA/DT is overwhelmingly driven by arguments that at root are ideological and largely focused upon continued efforts to legitimize homosexuality.
February 5, 2010 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
St. Joseph area sees spike in teen pregnancies
Any comments concerning the statistic that 41% of births in the county were to unwed mothers? Obviously the illegitimacy issue isn't just with teen mothers.
When are we going to wake up and realize that the problem lies with our societies doomed attempt to separate sex from procreation? The mechanisms of the hedonistic sexual lifestyle are readily available in every Wal-mart and local convenience store and yet unwed women keep getting pregnant. Can we ever connect the dots and understand that the more society presents sex as merely a recreational activity and the harder you push items to prevent pregnancy the more illegitimate babies we keep having? Ever think maybe it's time to stop the insanity? 40 years of the contraceptive mentality have brought us only more STD's, abortions, abused children and women, and broken homes.
How about a world where we place sex back in it's proper context; a loving life-long committed marital relationship between a man and a women who are prepared to commit together to raise a child?
February 3, 2010 at 8:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cardinal discusses church stance on creation, evolution
If a Church's teachings are true and if scientific theories are true there can be no contradiction between them, presuming that both religious believers as well as scientists do recognize the boundaries and limitations of their particular focus. So much of the misunderstandings today that lead to conflict occur because scientists seek to teach religion while religious fundamentalists and other believers seek to mold science to their beliefs. Cardinal Schonborn, in accurately proclaiming the teachings of the Catholic Faith, is a role model for those of us who understand that both science and religion originate from one Truth and work in unison to enlighten man through the appropriate application of their respective disciplines.
February 1, 2010 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cardinal discusses church stance on creation, evolution
Dawkins is a classic example of someone who approaches science with pre-conceived beliefs, or in this case non-beliefs, as Dawkins puts great "faith", paradoxically, in an adamant rejection of a belief in God. Dawkins' theory of biological evolution is necessitated by his unbelief in God which of course is unsubstantiated by facts. For your own review of Dawkin's "faith" I would refer you to God Is No Delusion by Thomas Crean, O.P.
Meanwhile, in the interest of time, why don't you explain your own answers to my questions above and we'll save the book reviews for another day.
February 1, 2010 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cardinal discusses church stance on creation, evolution
sjskeptic, who made the "definite scientific rules" guiding evolution and how, working off of your definition of "theory", do you prove your theory as fact? If you cannot, does not your "theory" then fall under your definition of what you accuse the "religious" of using?
Don't rules by definition require a rule maker to make them? Who is this rule maker and how do you again prove your "theory" factually? Please enlighten us.
February 1, 2010 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )