Hustler Magnate Larry Flynt Enters CA Governor's Race

[brownie0486]

mjydrafter :

Yes, he had issues with the Falwell debacle. That was years after the landmark 1st Amendment SCOTUS ruling relative free speech.

Falwell took him to court over a parody of Falwells mother and him getting "personal" in a cartoon in the mag. Falwell lost that case as well.

Parodies of public figures are now protected due to this case as well.

If you notice lately, his cartoons in the mag have "parody" near the cartoon. That may be part of the court rulling in the Falwell case, not sure.

Brownie

 

[scbair]

Maybe off-topic, but

Regardless of Flynt's "support" of the 1st Amendment, and regardless of his anti-2nd Amendment position ...
If he receives a single vote, it will serve as proof there are registered voters who should be stripped of that right! Character?? The man has NONE! So he says what he thinks, so what? His every published thought is obscene, if not (legally) pornographic, to say nothing of selfish.

"Yes, I should have the right to sell, er, that is, say, anything I want to."

"No, the Second Amendment does not really apply to the People; the framers of the U.S. Constitution should never have said THAT!"

Why would anyone want such an imbecile to lead their state (that's what led to the recall, as a matter of fact)?

 

[brownie0486]

For a man in a wheelchair, he has shown to have more spine against the feds/state entities than most here on the forum.

You may not agree with his philosophy but you can appreciate what he has gone through. He refuses to go away and fights them at every chance he gets for what he believes are his rights, at a great personal expense. [ apparently the SCOTUS also felt the same way whether they liked his character or not ].

How many here are willing to go to jail for what they believe? Not many when it comes right down to it right? Most of us will bend to the feds pressures when push comes to shove, he didn't, he doesn't, and can't be bought.

Thats the type of politician we need in office, one with a spine who doesn't cowtow to anyones special interests or owes favors for votes.

Not that he'll come close to a victory here, but it does beg the what if's.

imbecile? Not many of those types make 20-30 million a year do they? On the contrary, it takes an intelligent man to take on the feds and outlast them and win at the highest levels of justice. He knows how to make money, he also knows how to squander it. He is capable of ferretting out the corruption in that state, the nepotism, etc and cut the fat out of the budget.

If I lived in Ca. I'd vote for him before some Democrat.


Brownie

 

[mjydrafter]

This election is going to be one of the most entertaining things ever to come out of the "entertainment state". $3500 and 65 signatures is all it takes. Larry Flynt will be the least of CA's worries.

I am in no way defending Larry, but the guys in a wheel chair because of a criminal with a gun. So I guess I can understand his fear of criminals with guns (irrational-maybe, understandable-yes). It's a better reason than 99.9% of the anti's reasons. Not that I agree with him on this particular issue.

 

[longeyes]

What's his campaign slogan?

"A chick and some pot!" Shades of the past!

As someone who still lives in CA--yeah, still, but who knows for
how long?--I despair at seeing my once great State turned into a
damn circus. I'm reminded of I, Claudius: "Let all the poisons that
lurk in the mud leech out." I guess we can expect it to get worse before it gets better. Certainly candidates like Flynt and Schwarzenegger
aren't going to restore fiscal and legislative sanity. Their candidacies,
to me, are symptomatic of what's wrong.

 

[MicroBalrog]

"Yes, I should have the right to sell, er, that is, say, anything I want to."

There's something WRONG with that?

 

[Duncan Idaho]

He may be anti-gun, I have no knowledge one way or the other.

You can't possibly be serious.

Just in case you are serious, here is a helpful hint: when he talks about firearms, who should be able to own them, and what types the peasantry should be allowed to own, pay attention. That should make for a really good start.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

So I guess I can understand his fear of criminals with guns

Larry Flynt wants to take my ability to own guns (except those he approves of for the peasants) away. I don't know about you - this is an internet forum after all - but I am not a criminal. Larry the Flynt wants to take my guns.

him!

 

[brownie0486]

longeyes :

Who knows what it will be.

If he uses the slogan he always uses the downtown LA offices it will be

"Think Pink"

Brownie

 

[brownie0486]

Duncan Idaho:

Doesn't every candidate want to take the residents guns in that state?

It almost sounded like he was the only candidate with that agenda by your post.

I'm of the impression your reps out there have already been busy for decades doing just what you are accusing him of doing. They got elected anyway in previous years, he has as much chance as the next anti-gun guy to run for that seat.

The only difference is, he knows first hand what he's talking about when he talks about firearms control, the rest speak rhetorically.

Brownie

 

[longeyes]

Combine Hugh Hefner and Dr. Strangelove and you've got Larry Flynt.

 

[rock jock]

You may not agree with his philosophy but you can appreciate what he has gone through. He refuses to go away and fights them at every chance he gets for what he believes are his rights, at a great personal expense.

brownie,

You are under the mistaken belief that just because a person fights for what they believe in, their fight is somehow admirable. I don't admire people who fight to advance an agenda of sleeze and moral debauchery and more than I admire Diane Feinswine for her fight to ban firearms.

 

[scottgun]

The victim of a gunshot attack that has left him in a wheelchair

Let's hope for better aim next time, maybe with a larger caliber?

Flynt is a scum bag, at least real politicians try to portray the illusion that they are trying to do something positive. Flynt appeals to the lowest common denominator and doesn't have a shread of decency.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

The only difference is, he knows first hand what he's talking about when he talks about firearms control, the rest speak rhetorically.

Actually there is no difference. The nonsense that he, you, and they believe in, to wit: that "guns are ok for me to own - because I'm a cop, or a smut peddler, or a Demorat - but aren't ok for the peons to own" are the same argument. Firearms control only disarms those that obey the law. By definition, that is all it can ever do. Ergo they/he/you are not just speaking rhetorically, but you are also lying. You, Flynt, and Fineswine all use guns to protect yourselves. It is only other people that you want to keep guns away from.

A gun didn't cripple Larry the Flynt. A POS much like himself did.

Had that person not had a gun, they may well have used a knife. You have heard of people being killed/maimed with knives, haven't you?

Nice to see that you agree with him though. I suspected as much all along.

 

[MicroBalrog]

I don't admire people who fight to advance an agenda of sleeze and moral debauchery

I'd call it an agenda of freedom.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

I should also take the time to address this:

I'm of the impression your reps out there have already been busy for decades doing just what you are accusing him of doing. They got elected anyway in previous years, he has as much chance as the next anti-gun guy to run for that seat.

First of all, they aren't "my" reps. I would never live in that craphole of a state. Be that as it may, you are the one that wanted to tell us all why we should have a better appreciation of Larry the Flynt. I've done my level best to tell you why that is ridiculous.

It really isn't my fault that neither you, nor he, can understand that infinite 1st Amendment rights are ridiculously meaningless in comparison with a person's first and foremost right to life, its preservation, and protection. You and he certainly know it. You both either use guns, or hire people that use guns, to protect your own lives. It's just that the idea that everyone should be able to have that option, that sticks in your craw. If it didn't, you would never consider Larry's position on firearms to be anything other than rhetoric. Really bad, illogical, and false rhetoric at that.

You see, I am of the opinion that all human rights are inviolable. Not just the ones that make me money.

 

[Bruce H]

Man o man are there some real dandys around here. Does anyone remember who stood at the fine perfect Rev. Falwell's side during the supreme court time. Another pious individual who cost several lots of money. Like him or not he never camoflaged who he is.

 

[brownie0486]

Duncan Idaho:

I'm not sure where you got I was against anyone owning a firearm as I certainly support the right to keep and bear arms. Not sure how you painted me with that brush but it is incorrect regardless.

Yes, Flynt should be appreciated for doing morr toward furtherance of the people rights than most, and at great expense to himself, not any taxpayer.

Your comment about the 1st right not being equal to the others and the 2nd in particular I find very interesting indeed. I was of the impression they were all equally important and that was one fo the reasons the founding fathers included them together. I could be wrong however.

Sure I use a gun, he hires guns. My intention was to make people aware of WHY he might not like guns in private hands, he would if anyone, know more about the subject than most having taken a few to the body and since suffered great pain and rehab, again at his cost. That in no way vindicates his position on private ownership of firearms however, nor did I say I agreed with it. It's one thing to understand his mindset and that understanding doesn't mandatorily state I agree with him, just that I understand why he might feel strongly abouyt the subject.

So, no, I don't believe in the "nonsense" that he professes, on the other hand I'm objective enough to understand the thought process behind it. Apparently you are having a problem with that and I have no way of helping you on that issue.

People can be antigun and still not be your sworn enemy, as you suggest/inference. When one closes their mind to the whole picture and focuses only on one point in a mans life they tend to lose objectivity, not that it is necessary to have, but it helps in understanding the other sides views.

I tend to stray from a hardline attitude and attempt to stay objective most of the time. Whether I like him or not, agree with him on issues or not, does not change the fact he furthered our own rights and secured them through the highest court in the US.

I vote republican, never for the bleeding heart liberals. That sound like I'm anti-gun? I didn't think so. You are confusing objective views of ones actions [ the facts ] with the thought process that all who are anti gun are the enemy.
You certainly have the right to feel that way, but then not being objective clouds facts and the real issues.

Larry can be a pig, a a$$, or anything else for all I care. He has helped further our agenda and rights, either inadvertently or for personal gain, and is someone whose personality has been lacking in gov for too long.

Brownie

 

[Stinger]

Firearms control only disarms those that obey the law.

But gun control is for the children.


Okay, we get the fact that Flynt stood up for his 1st Amendment rights, and spent mucho dinero doing so. It's quite easy for a multi-millionare to do so. He can hire lawyers, lobby, and hire more lawyers.

How many here are willing to go to jail for what they believe?

That's a joke. How many millions of more magazines would he have sold in jail. Bunches.

Just because somebody does something right once shouldn't/doesn't make them somehow nobler than I.

Stinger

 

[Duncan Idaho]

My intention was to make people aware of WHY he might not like guns in private hands, he would if anyone, know more about the subject than most having taken a few to the body and since suffered great pain and rehab, again at his cost.

Well if that was your intention, there is a way to do that in English, and "The only difference is, he knows first hand what he's talking about when he talks about firearms control, the rest speak rhetorically." isn't it.

People can be antigun and still not be your sworn enemy, as you suggest/inference.

Perhaps they can be for you. Not for me.

Your comment about the 1st right not being equal to the others and the 2nd in particular I find very interesting indeed. I was of the impression they were all equally important and that was one fo the reasons the founding fathers included them together. I could be wrong however.

I never said it wasn't an equal of the 2nd Amendment. I merely pointed out that a person that doesn't realize, and/or acknowledge that the rights enumerated in the 1st Amendment, are something less than meaningless drivel - without acknowledging the need for every human being to have substantive means with which to protect their life - is either a liar, an idiot, delusional, or some combination thereof.

It is my belief that Larry the Flynt most resembles the former.

 

[brownie0486]

Duncan:

I am capable and legal to carry a firearm in several states. I don't carry one daily even though I can.

I just don't find it necessary on a daily basis. If I'm working, thats a different story as I make my living with one.

I'm not of the impression I any less a person if I don't have one on me 24/7, nor am I so paranoid as to think it is necessary 24/7 for my survival.

If you haven't been shot, you speak rhetorically, he on the other hand speaks from experience. BTW--I have been so it's not rhetorical on this end.
Even having gone through such an event, I do not find the need to carry 24/7 to be whole, nor do I need to feel everyone who feels differently is a sworn enemy as you admit to thinking.

If I were not allowed to carry a firearm ever again, it would not be a life altering event where the trauma of losing same would cause me to lose sleep even one night.

Having been around many who have carried and do carry, I can tell you that too many people rely on a firearm like a crutch for actually being able to defend oneself.

If you don't feel whole as you are not allowed to pack heat to the point everyone becomes your enemy who feels differently than yourself for whatever reason, then there are apparently more underlying issues at work here.

It may be a right to carry, and everyone should be able to do so for self protection. That doesn't mean I'm less of a man or somehow diminished if I don't have heat concealed.

Too much emphasis on the carrying of a firearm to the point it is all consuming and denies you an objective viewpoint towards others views on the issue seems to me to be self defeating.

YMMV

Brownie