Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina
AP ^ | 4/23/6 | Seanna Adcox

Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham

Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys. But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.

The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.

"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."

Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."

"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous." The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.

People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: South Carolina
KEYWORDS: appliances; gardening; talibornagains
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-445 next last
To: SC Swamp Fox
"They can take my wife's vibrator when they pry it from her cold, dead........"

When dildos are outlawed, lawmakers will still be dildos.
351 posted on 04/24/2006 1:13:00 PM PDT by Wampus SC (The king is a fink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

Well, out of fairness, grits make a lousy sex aid. Cooked or uncooked.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mercy, I never knew that!!! You must lead a strange but interesting life.


352 posted on 04/24/2006 1:13:27 PM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 304 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
"We don't want Yankees with dildos coming down here and corrupting our women."

Everybody sing!

Oh, Yankee dildo went to town, riding on a.......
353 posted on 04/24/2006 1:17:27 PM PDT by Wampus SC (The king is a fink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; tpaine

Dildos, drugs, guns, boots, BBQ
Sounds like a new campaign slogan has been born. You gonna be the poster boy, totin' all that gear?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am in the process of copyrighting "Dildos, drugs, guns, boots, BBQ". That wil be the name of my new country rock group as soon as I can hire some performers. I plan to ask Hank Williams Jr. to come on board as advisor.


354 posted on 04/24/2006 1:18:06 PM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 232 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"What does that mean? You're describing anarchy -- everyone lives by their own rules."

Ohhhhhh NOOOOOO! Not anarchy!

Hundreds - no, THOUSANDS - of wild-eyed, radical anarchist women rampaging through the streets of downtown Charleston with dildos! Noooooooooo!........... not THAT!!!!
355 posted on 04/24/2006 1:26:16 PM PDT by Wampus SC (The king is a fink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Are you saying that the citizens should not be allowed to petition their state legislature to prohibit these products? Are you saying that they must allow this in the name of "freedom" -- the priciple being "Freedom for me and not for thee"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Paulsen, you have demonstrated incredible ability to get things "Bass Ackwards". Do you walk down the street that way? Is your car stuck in reverse?


356 posted on 04/24/2006 1:27:24 PM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer
"I am in the process of copyrighting "Dildos, drugs, guns, boots, BBQ". That wil be the name of my new country rock group as soon as I can hire some performers. I plan to ask Hank Williams Jr. to come on board as advisor."

Too bad Warren Zevon isn't around anymore. He could sing, "Send lawyers, guns and dildos...."
357 posted on 04/24/2006 1:33:37 PM PDT by Wampus SC (The king is a fink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer
I am in the process of copyrighting "Dildos, drugs, guns, boots, BBQ".

The major benefit will be in winning bets that you can get some Google hits on that odd combination of words.

358 posted on 04/24/2006 1:38:21 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation

Well, that would include a lot of T.V.'s and DVD players, as well as many cable and dish installations. Not to mention Bill Clinton's cigars.

359 posted on 04/24/2006 1:40:55 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
" The major benefit will be in winning bets that you can get some Google hits on that odd combination of words."

Yep. Just tried it -- 82,000 hits.
360 posted on 04/24/2006 1:42:36 PM PDT by Wampus SC (The king is a fink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Wampus SC

I got 86,000. Obviously a growing movement.


361 posted on 04/24/2006 1:44:40 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
the state has the power to regulate the commerce in their state. They can prohibit the sale of sex toys, for example.

Leaving aside the question of whether a state does or should have the right to ban the sale of sex toys, why do it? Is there some threat to the commonweal involved? Is it a thinly-disguised attempt to enforce religious beliefs of some people on others? Or are some people not happy that others might be enjoying themselves, so to speak?

Anyway, this law would be blatantly discriminatory against seasoned citizens who have severe arthritis, secretaries with carpal tunnel syndrome, and amputees. If this bill becomes Law, the SCOTUS case would be hugh and series -- and brutally entertaining.

362 posted on 04/24/2006 2:06:29 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats (I Love Free Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
They can prohibit the sale of sex toys, for example. Since Congress has chosen to regulate marijuana, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to comply.

Are you saying that, despite federal action in this area, states should still be allowed to regulate marijuana as they please?

I didn't say that at all -- I simply asked you a question. I can't get past your logical inconsistencies. When you agree with a federal law (War on Drugs), you invoke the Supremacy Clause, i.e. that the Constitution and federal statutes are the Supreme Law of the Land, and states are bound to uphold the federal law as supreme. But in the case of RKBA, you take a clearly enumerated Constitutional right, and subjugate it to the control of each state legislature without regard to the Supremacy Clause.

363 posted on 04/24/2006 2:21:26 PM PDT by Ryan Spock (Former Internet Addict -- Making good progress with help from an online support group)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Taxman

Cross the stateline from GA to SC and you see the big FIREWORKS signs.

I can see it now....coming intoGA will be a 'SEX TOYS Next Exit' sign, LOL!


364 posted on 04/24/2006 2:24:38 PM PDT by Protect the Bill of Rights (GOP, The Other France)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer
Sorry fella, but my copyright was registered as of 04/23/2006 1:58:09 PM PDT.

For a mere 5% of your gross, [plus residuals] I will license your rock group. -- Contact my lawyer thru FReepmail.
365 posted on 04/24/2006 4:06:20 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The major benefit will be in winning bets that you can get some Google hits on that odd combination of words.

Bummer! Tried exactly than AND hit the "I Feel Lucky" button.
What a disappointment!

So, what came up? (No pun intended)
366 posted on 04/24/2006 4:28:08 PM PDT by NonLinear (He's dead, Jim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Yes, we have no bananas,
We have no bananas today!

367 posted on 04/24/2006 4:34:42 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Where have you guys been? We went through this in Georgia years ago. FIJA got escorted off courthouse grounds during the trial of the store owners. Yep same law, nothing that resembles human genitalia can be sold to stimulate human genitalia. No kidding. What makes people think we live in a "free" country? Democracies aren't free they're mob rule.


368 posted on 04/24/2006 4:41:18 PM PDT by BabsC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
Other states that ban the sale of sex toys include Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas.

The laws used to exist all over. Some were repealed, most others are ignored. Trying to pass a new one in the 21st century is ... novel.

369 posted on 04/24/2006 4:43:35 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: marajade
What other Southern states ban sex toys?

Texas mom faces trial for selling sex toys

Similar laws mentioned in this article: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

370 posted on 04/24/2006 4:49:14 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: BabsC
I'm disgusted by the amount of conservatives who think its a great idea to let states do whatever they want.

No government can EVER infringe on any of our rights, because those rights are given by any Constitution they are given with birth. Even if a state had no first amendment the government has no right to ban free speech because it is my right, no matter what any government ever says. Plus the 9th and 14th amendments are clear that the rights in the bill of rights must be respected by the states, and enumerated rights are not the only rights you have.

Individual rights > states rights > federal rights, in that order.

Some of the Christian demonetization's are truly the American Taliban

371 posted on 04/24/2006 5:05:03 PM PDT by RHINO369
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Paulsen ignores Article VI Sec 2:

It was the original intent of the Founders to have the Bill of Rights restrain solely the newly formed federal government.

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Case in point. In the deliberations of the constitution, Madison proposed: "Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It was rejected. The Founders did not want such constitutional limitations placed on the states.

It was rejected. The Founders had already written/ratified Article VI Sec 2. There was no need for further specificity.

Yes, the Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution. But an amendment like the 14th (which supposedly applied the BOR to the states) was totally contrary to the original intent of the Founders!

The 14th was necessary to clarify the issue. Southern States were violating 2nd Amendment rights using the erroneous 'Barron' decision.

For you to sit there say that because it was an amendment it therefore complied with original intent is, excuse me, absurd.

Paulsen, your's is the absurd argument, based solely on a redundant Madison proposal. Give it a rest. The Constitution is quite clear in defending individual rights.

The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on the federal government only.

The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on fed/state/local governments. Clearly, this "right of the people" -- "shall not be infringed".

Whether the second amendment protects an individual right or a collective right is moot when it comes to state law, since every court in the land has ruled that the second amendment does not apply to state laws. Period.

Simply not true. Nunn_v_Georgia proves otherwise:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nunn_v_state.txt

Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution.

Not true in Calif, Ill, & NY, - just for starters.

That's just the way it is, and coincidentally, that is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it. They trusted their state over everything else. They identified themselves by their state, as a Virginian or a Georgian, and took pride in the things that made their state different. To think they would press for some kind of constitutional federal uniformity is ludicrous.

Dream on paulsen, -- wrap yourself in an imaginary patriotism, 'protected' by States that are just as politically corrupted as the federal government.

372 posted on 04/24/2006 5:09:47 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Ok, I dont get it.

What harm do sex toys cause ? how do they disturb the peace ?


373 posted on 04/24/2006 5:30:14 PM PDT by se_ohio_young_conservative (God makes us strong for alittle while so that we can protect the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"South Carolina is too large to be a lunatic asylum and too small to be a republic."
-- James Pettigrew
374 posted on 04/24/2006 6:53:47 PM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nova
"The thing is, I'm more comfortable debating things that have actually been said, and am not too sure how to do otherwise."

And I'm more comfortable with people who correctly interpret what I say. I restated it to clarify what I said, not change what I said.

"Oh, now I see. You merely assert that your opponent said something through a misleading accusation, and then debate the false point."

What are you whining about now? Your question was, "Are you really contending that a ban would be within their rights even if no ill effect can be shown to actually exist?". You didn't say there was no ill effect. You postulated "IF there is no ill effect". So I responded that "... if ...there is no ill effect, the citizens may question the legislature as to the purpose of this law and make their voices known."

Tell me again about these straw men.

375 posted on 04/25/2006 5:09:57 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Chances Are
"They are, in fact (except for OTB), illegal."

Yes, and South Carolina wishes to make the sale of sex toys illegal. The proposed law IS analogous to the other existing laws.

"It's uses and functions occur in the home, in private, in what should be well beyond the prying eyes of others, the omnipotent state included."

So you think the law prohibits the use of sex toys in the home? Why are you making this the issue?

The law prohibits the SALE of sex toys. It's right in the title of the article. You don't even have to read the whole article. It's right there for everyone to see. Did you see it?

Then why are you whining about "private use" and "prying eyes" and "in the home"? None of that is affected!

The citizens of South Carolina are free to go out of state to purchase these products or order them online. Who cares? They just don't want them sold in stores.

376 posted on 04/25/2006 5:21:52 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
"Is there some threat to the commonweal involved?"

Is that the new threshhold for laws -- they must address some threat? You set a pretty high bar there.

"Is it a thinly-disguised attempt to enforce religious beliefs of some people on others?"

Ah. You think people may be imposing their morality on others. Well, in a sense they are.

The citizens of South Carolina, through this law, are setting a standard for decency in their state. They believe the sex toys to be obscene, and want their sale banned. I say they have that right.

"Anyway, this law would be blatantly discriminatory against seasoned citizens who have severe arthritis, secretaries with carpal tunnel syndrome, and amputees."

These groups are certainly entitled to challenge the law. But since the law bans the sale, not possession and use, I don't think they'll have much of a case.

377 posted on 04/25/2006 5:38:37 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Spock
"But in the case of RKBA, you take a clearly enumerated Constitutional right, and subjugate it to the control of each state legislature without regard to the Supremacy Clause."

I said, "As with any law, absent Congressional action, the state has the power to regulate the commerce in their state." When the federal government passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, each state was bound by that law under the Supremacy Clause.

You'll have to be more specific when you talk about my inconsistencies -- I don't know what you're talking about.

The U.S. Constitution does not enumerate rights. The U.S. Constitution states which rights will be protected from federal infringement (The 14th amendment "incorporated" some of the Bill of Rights and extended their protection to the state level -- the 2nd amendment was not one of them). Some of the rights are very specific, some are vague (the right to "liberty", for example). If there is a question about whether some right is indeed protected (the right to dance nude, for example), the U.S. Supreme Court decides the issue.

Every court in the land, every one, has stated that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution only applies to the federal government. In other words, it protects the RKBA from federal infringement.

Furthermore, every federal court in every court decision (save one court in one decision) has stated that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution only protects a collective RKBA (ie., as part of a state militia). In other words, the federal government may not infringe the states' ability to arm the citizens and form a state militia. That's all the second amendment does.

Your individual RKBA is defined and protected by your state.

378 posted on 04/25/2006 6:07:30 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Paulsen lectures on State 'morality':

Ah. You think people may be imposing their morality on others. Well, in a sense they are. The citizens of South Carolina, through this law, are setting a standard for decency in their state. They believe the sex toys to be obscene, and want their sale banned.
I say they have that right.

You say they have a 'moral' right to ban toys, -- and guns.

Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution.

Not true in Calif, Ill, & NY, - just for starters.

That's just the way it is, and coincidentally, that is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it. They trusted their state over everything else.

Dream on paulsen, -- wrap yourself in an imaginary patriotism, 'protected' by States that are just as politically corrupted as the federal government.

>>>>>>> Crickets from post #372 <<<<<<<

379 posted on 04/25/2006 6:18:58 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Not true in Calif, Ill, & NY, - just for starters."

Sure it is. I said your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. If there is nothing in your state constitution about arms, then your RKBA is neither defined nor protected.

380 posted on 04/25/2006 6:36:31 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Paulsen on the militia:

--- the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution only protects a collective RKBA (ie., as part of a state militia). In other words, the federal government may not infringe the states' ability to arm the citizens and form a state militia.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

"--- A "well-regulated" militia is not a prohibited militia but one that is well drilled. Even those who read the Second Amendment as a "collective" rather than an individual right on the basis of this preface concede--indeed their theory requires them to insist--that the power to regulate the militia that the Constitution elsewhere confers upon Congress does not include the power to forbid or prohibit the militia. By their interpretation, the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect the continued existence of the state militias. ---"

Prof. R. Barnett
The power to regulate v. the power to prohibit
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1419654/posts

Thus we see, -- even among the Sarah Brady set, -- logic would lead a ~reasonable~ person to agree that a State does not have a delegated power to prohibit weapons, as this would infringe on the peoples right to bear arms [in a militia, if need be].

Can you admit you are being ~unreasonable~ on this issue, paulsen?

381 posted on 04/25/2006 7:00:26 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"Bill [CLINTON] would make sale of sex toys illegal"

"They should be free, like the air we breathe," said a spokesman for the former president.

382 posted on 04/25/2006 7:16:01 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Paulsen ignores Article VI Sec 2:

It was the original intent of the Founders to have the Bill of Rights restrain solely the newly formed federal government.

2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Case in point. In the deliberations of the constitution, Madison proposed: "Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
It was rejected. The Founders did not want such constitutional limitations placed on the states.

It was rejected. The Founders had already written/ratified Article VI Sec 2. There was no need for further specificity.

Yes, the Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution. But an amendment like the 14th (which supposedly applied the BOR to the states) was totally contrary to the original intent of the Founders!

The 14th was necessary to clarify the issue. Southern States were violating 2nd Amendment rights using the erroneous 'Barron' decision.

For you to sit there say that because it was an amendment it therefore complied with original intent is, excuse me, absurd.

Paulsen, your's is the absurd argument, based solely on a redundant Madison proposal. Give it a rest. The Constitution is quite clear in defending individual rights.

The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on the federal government only.

The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on fed/state/local governments. Clearly, this "right of the people" -- "shall not be infringed".

Whether the second amendment protects an individual right or a collective right is moot when it comes to state law, since every court in the land has ruled that the second amendment does not apply to state laws. Period.

Simply not true. Nunn_v_Georgia proves otherwise:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nunn_v_state.txt

Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution.

Not true in Calif, Ill, & NY, - just for starters.

Sure it is. I said your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. If there is nothing in your state constitution about arms, then your RKBA is neither defined nor protected.

There you go again bobbie, making a circular 'denial' type argument, -- ignoring the rest of the Constitution, and the rest of the comments above.

Have you no shame? -- Time after time, when people here present you with well reasoned arguments, you pick one detail to 'deny/answer', ignoring all else.. -- Pitiful display.

383 posted on 04/25/2006 7:19:38 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Well, Robert, moving past the basic inanity of your post to me, if, as you state, the good citizens of South Carolina want to prohibit the sale of said sex toys, would it not be a stretch to see them eventually banning them altogether?

I mean, why ban the sales, if you're not going to go all the way with it? What's the logic behind that?

Another point on your multitudinous posts on this subject - anyone besides the repressed Davenport sponsoring this bill? And since it's a long way from passage, how can you maintain it's the will of the people of South Carolina?

Just because one guy wants to make a name for himself and do his best rendition of Carrie Nation doesn't mean there's any consensus out there. Wouldn't it be more prudent to say a legislator wants to ban the sale of these toys, rather than say "the people of South Carolina"?

Your post simply makes no sense. Contrary to what you say, no, they are not analogous. As usual, you've missed the point. Just because you would like them to be analogous doesn't make it so.

So to reiterate, what's the purpose of banning the sale of these items, and stopping there?

You know, I've always been more than a little wary of people who, not content to live their own lives, seemingly want to live everyone else's for them. This guy's attempt at this type of legislation definitely falls under this category.

His time would be much better spent focusing on the real problems of the state that he was elected to represent. If this is their biggest problem, South Carolina, alone among all political entities in the universe, has reached Nirvana.

Somehow, I don't really think that's the case.

CA....

384 posted on 04/25/2006 7:47:05 AM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Chances Are
"I mean, why ban the sales, if you're not going to go all the way with it? What's the logic behind that? "

My understanding is that they don't like the storefronts, the window displays, the advertising signage, etc. They consider the display, the marketing, and the sales of these products to be obscene and want them off the shelves.

"Wouldn't it be more prudent to say a legislator wants to ban the sale of these toys, rather than say "the people of South Carolina"?"

I'm assuming this legislator represents at least some of the citizens of South Carolina, so wouldn't it instead be more prudent of me to say "some of the people of South Carolina" instead of "the people of South Carolina"?

This is all you got? Nitpicking words and phrases? This is the sum total of your contribution to the debate?

"This guy's attempt at this type of legislation definitely falls under this category."

It happens. Some guy up for reelection want an "issue" to run on. If "the people" don't want this they'll let their legislators know and it won't pass.

Other than giving me a hard time, have you got a point you're trying to make?

385 posted on 04/25/2006 9:14:45 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 384 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
My understanding is that they don't like the storefronts, the window displays, the advertising signage, etc. They consider the display, the marketing, and the sales of these products to be obscene and want them off the shelves.

That is classic "community standards" criteria. I wasn't aware it was a state legislature issue. Of course, I suppose some people who have bigger dreams than being a legislator from the town of Backwater may try and fit this into a state-type issue. Who knows what thought processes are at work down there?

I'm assuming this legislator represents at least some of the citizens of South Carolina, so wouldn't it instead be more prudent of me to say "some of the people of South Carolina" instead of "the people of South Carolina"?

I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who's been invoking the "people of South Carolina".

This is all you got? Nitpicking words and phrases? This is the sum total of your contribution to the debate?

Nitpicking? Isn't that rich! I've been following your posts, and this isn't the charge for you to level. On the other hand, given the paucity of your "arguments", maybe it is....

It happens. Some guy up for reelection want an "issue" to run on. If "the people" don't want this they'll let their legislators know and it won't pass.

Uhhh, that's been one of my points. Nothing's law yet, nothing's even been debated in that legislature. We have, according to the story provided, no evidence of anything other than single sponsorship of this absurdity. And yet, all this time, you've been invoking "the people". You apparently can't see the irony in your post.

Other than giving me a hard time, have you got a point you're trying to make?

Given what's transpired on this thread, that's a line that doesn't even merit consideration, let alone a response.

CA....

386 posted on 04/25/2006 10:50:11 AM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: Chances Are
"that's a line that doesn't even merit consideration, let alone a response."

Humor me. What's your point?

387 posted on 04/25/2006 11:02:41 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Are you saying that you should you be allowed to force your perversions on them in the name of "freedom"?

So selling them is forcing perversions on people now? So that would mean that selling guns is forcing death on people (if you are anti-gun person) or selling tobacco is forcing people to smoke or selling burgers and junk food is forcing people to become fat? Get a grip.

388 posted on 04/25/2006 6:14:32 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

State of Confusion?


389 posted on 04/25/2006 6:17:36 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mister Da

Bet she has, that is why he is banning them. Bet she needs the toys to show him her Ohh face......Oh, oh,..you know what I am talking about, oh, oh.


390 posted on 04/25/2006 6:21:40 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Taxman

I wonder if people will have to register their sex toys?


391 posted on 04/25/2006 6:23:56 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Perhaps it won't, but the fact is that the idiot wasted time to even come up with the bill and to present it. That was time and money that could have been better spent and it would have been one less bill for them to deal with.

How about using some common sense for comming up with bills, if it had been used he would never have offered this stupid bill.


392 posted on 04/25/2006 6:27:12 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

You mean that people should be forced to live by your religious beliefs (let me guess, Baptist right?) even if the people don't belong to the same religion as you (thus not having the same beliefs). No drinking, no skirts above the ankles, no makeup, no women wearing pants, no holding hands, etc.

Face it you are as much as a religious radical as those wacky taliban. How dare people have the big O and how dare they do it using toys to do it.


393 posted on 04/25/2006 6:37:50 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Why not put it on the ballot and find out? Just because something put into a bill does not necessarily mean that it has the support of the people. It may have support of some people, just like ultra-radical evironmental wacko bills have support of the ultra-radical evironmental wackos, the handle that they are, but not the support of the people as a majority.


394 posted on 04/25/2006 6:44:53 PM PDT by looscnnn ("Olestra (Olean) applications causes memory leaks" PC Confusious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
"Why not put it on the ballot and find out?"

Because they have legislators to do that for them. That's their job. That's our form of government, not a pure democracy.

395 posted on 04/26/2006 4:21:14 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 394 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
"So selling them is forcing perversions on people now?"

No, telling the citizens of South Carolina that, in the name of freedom, they have no right to prohibit the sale of sex toys. That's forcing a perversion on the people.

Do you believe the citizens of South Carolina have no right to prohibit the sale of sex toys?

396 posted on 04/26/2006 4:25:22 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: looscnnn
"You mean that people should be forced to live by your religious beliefs"

Where do MY religious beliefs enter into this? I didn't see my name in the article, did you?

The citizens of South Carolina decide. Not me. Not you. That's my point.

397 posted on 04/26/2006 4:28:38 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I wonder if a battery operated banana would be legal????


398 posted on 04/26/2006 4:35:35 AM PDT by libbybelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Humor you? You recognize humor? OK...

You've persisted in engaging in a farce even when shown the error of your thought processes.

It was pointed out that you're engaging in logical fallacies leading to most illogical premises and conclusions.

Saying an analogy applies even when it's painfully evident it does not is just the beginning.

Having pointed out that this bill is apparently (according to the news article) the effort of a single dingbat in the legislature, and even having seen you admit that perhaps it would be more accurate to invoke the will of "some of the people" rather than the population in general, you have subsequently persisted in presenting this invalid argument as if it were valid. It is not.

The point is, Robert, that there is no similarity between the sale of sex toys and a crack house (which, in your previous post, you conveniently place next door to the poster's house that you were replying to);

That a bill introduced into the legislature by a single lawmaker, however unbalanced, however irrelevant, and however unimportant in the overall scheme of things, is not the same as the declared will of the people of that political entity.

If you simply want to state that you think this bill is a good idea - great! You've added something of import to this discussion. It's when you go off on illogical tangents that the basic instability of your arguments is revealed.

That's my point, Robert - you don't argue a good case.

CA....
399 posted on 04/26/2006 8:55:44 AM PDT by Chances Are (Whew! It seems I've once again found that silly grin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies]

To: Chances Are
Robert - you don't argue a good case.
CA....

Well said.

400 posted on 04/26/2006 12:41:04 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-445 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson