Our President

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]ZEB wrote:
According to your incredibly flawed logic (as usual) there should be nothing wrong with airing porno on prime time. Hey…their just human bodies and if parents don’t want the kids to see this stuff it’s up to the parents to turn off the TV. After all you have a right to watch porno! See how silly your argument is? :slight_smile:
[/quote]

Malonetd did a great job, but I will add that this was not porno. Unless you consider the thousands of naked titties at the museum “porno” as well, you are speaking out of your ass. No one even knew she had on a nipple ring because the whole “event” lasted all of .3 seconds before she covered it up. It isn’t like she went prancing around the stage with titties bouncing. No one knew about the nipple ring until the news slowed down the tape, rewound it, and played it back 5,000 times that afternoon…right before it made its rounds across the internet. If this is “porno” to you, I have no doubt that you only have sex through a hole in the sheet and missionary is about as close as you will ever get to the Karma Sutra.

62

[quote]JeffR wrote:
When caught, he lied under oath.

Lied under oath.
[/quote]

Every single president for the past century at least, and probably far beyond, has lied under oath.

The oath to uphold the Constitution.

George W. Bush has been one of the worst “liars”.

63

Off topic but,

The whole halftime show was garbage, not just .3 of a nipple shot. Gyrating and fake fuckin’ all over the stage was not appropriate for the time and the audience. How can that be argued? It wouldn’t have caused such a stir otherwise. The other performers sucked as well. The backlash caused this years ultra bogus show, so hopefully we can get somewhere in the middle in a year or two.

Back on topic

Prof. even though you’re trying you just can’t compare the 2 acts we are discussing. Not only is the time frame an issue, so are the comparability of the 2 acts.

You can’t talk about something someone did 10-20 years ago as related to their current character. People do change and with that their character undergoes evolution. Positive as well as negative. That clip is a non-issue. Period!

64

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
You can’t talk about something someone did 10-20 years ago as related to their current character. People do change and with that their character undergoes evolution. Positive as well as negative. That clip is a non-issue. Period![/quote]

How do you know he has changed? How do you know anything about the man other than what many PR workers are working over time to present to you?

65

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Off topic but,

The whole halftime show was garbage, not just .3 of a nipple shot. Gyrating and fake fuckin’ all over the stage was not appropriate for the time and the audience. How can that be argued? It wouldn’t have caused such a stir otherwise. The other performers sucked as well. The backlash caused this years ultra bogus show, so hopefully we can get somewhere in the middle in a year or two.[/quote]

Also, just to respond to this seperately, what fool was in the dark about who was performing on stage? They advertise for WEEKS who is going to perform and the last few half time shows for YEARS have been Brittany Spears, random rock groups and Nelly, all of which are not G-rated. You would have to be the world’s greatest simpleton to expect for Bugs Bunny to jump out on stage as if you had no knowledge that MTV’s greatest performers, artists, or dancers were performing.

You only have a point if you think that MTV is G-rated. Bottom line, no one cared until this was made a ridiculously large issue by conservatives who will look at a clip of the president shooing the middle finger and literally laugh it off but act as if their world just ended because of .3 seconds of a nipple at the END of an entire half time show.

That means you not only sat through the whole thing (as if you hated it so much), but you were sitting so close to the tv that you noticed it. Something doesn’t sound right. If you were truly so appauled by some dancers on stage, you would have changed the freaking channel long before she and Justin Timberlake ever reached the end of the song. That, my friend, is called bullshit.

66

Now, now. They know he was elected so obviously he is a demi-god who can do no wrong. Weren’t you following along on erection night, it was a massive landslide and the democrats got zero votes.

67

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Malonetd did a great job, but I will add that this was not porno. Unless you consider the thousands of naked titties at the museum “porno” as well, you are speaking out of your ass. No one even knew she had on a nipple ring because the whole “event” lasted all of .3 seconds before she covered it up. It isn’t like she went prancing around the stage with titties bouncing. No one knew about the nipple ring until the news slowed down the tape, rewound it, and played it back 5,000 times that afternoon…right before it made its rounds across the internet. If this is “porno” to you, I have no doubt that you only have sex through a hole in the sheet and missionary is about as close as you will ever get to the Karma Sutra.
[/quote]

malonteds post was entertaining, I think that’s about where it begins and ends. I called Jackson a slut because of her “slut like behavior.” Anyone who does such a thing during a Super Bowl half time deserves the tag! I also agree that celebs are fair game. Especially those who want to act like she does! She obviously wants attention at any cost.

Okay Prof on to your many mischaracterizations which you are famous for:

I never called Jacksons little show “porno” did I? Nope guess not! It was inappropriate for children, but I never called it porno.

You also used that museum crap before. You know (no, maybe you don’t, come to think of it) it’s all about “context.” Jackson was trying to revive a fading career with the boob flash. She is not exactly a work of art huh? A fine sculpture of the human body is another matter.

Let’s see what else did you mischaracterize in your usual manner? Oh yes, my mention of porno on prime time, not “pay TV” as you stated. Funny how it can mean a whole different thing when you change it like that. Hey…are you doing this on purpose, or are you just not paying attention to the posts?

As far as my personal sex life, I had no idea you were interested. How long have you wanted to know about T-Men’s sex lives? …Ha ha…I can see your big ass peeking in peoples windows with one hand on a camcorder and the other …yuck…

Now answer my question please: Do you think Porno should be on prime time, Prof? Isn’t it your right to watch it for free if you want to? They are just bodies doing what comes naturally right?

68

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Also, just to respond to this seperately, what fool was in the dark about who was performing on stage? They advertise for WEEKS who is going to perform and the last few half time shows for YEARS have been Brittany Spears, random rock groups and Nelly, all of which are not G-rated. You would have to be the world’s greatest simpleton to expect for Bugs Bunny to jump out on stage as if you had no knowledge that MTV’s greatest performers, artists, or dancers were performing.

You only have a point if you think that MTV is G-rated. Bottom line, no one cared until this was made a ridiculously large issue by conservatives who will look at a clip of the president shooing the middle finger and literally laugh it off but act as if their world just ended because of .3 seconds of a nipple at the END of an entire half time show.

That means you not only sat through the whole thing (as if you hated it so much), but you were sitting so close to the tv that you noticed it. Something doesn’t sound right. If you were truly so appauled by some dancers on stage, you would have changed the freaking channel long before she and Justin Timberlake ever reached the end of the song. That, my friend, is called bullshit.
[/quote]

Hey Sasquatch Prof wants us to believe that it’s our fault! LOL, we should have known that ole’ Janet was going to drop the top…His excuse here is as lame as comparing a sitting President committing adultery in the oval office with a private citizen flipping the bird to a camera.

Prof…you are making me laugh, man. Do more posts like that, please!

69

[quote]vroom wrote:
How do you know anything about the man other than what many PR workers are working over time to present to you?

Now, now. They know he was elected so obviously he is a demi-god who can do no wrong. Weren’t you following along on election night, it was a massive landslide and the democrats got zero votes.[/quote]

vroom in all seriousness, using the Prof logic (which is and has always been very poor) how do we know anything about anyone?

How can you even cast a vote for anyone?

70

Prof
First and foremost, you know that he hasn’t changed as much as I do he has. It’s our perception, and quite frankly that is allreality is.

On the second I say You are full of shit. I didn’t sit through the whole half-time, but lucky for me I saw about the last one minute of the JT-JJ fake fuck-fest. So there, you’re not quite as smart as you think you are. Quit judging everyone from your damn self-perceived ivory tower.

Me sir–you do not intimidate!

Just because someone is on MTV doesn’t mean they are gonna strip and gyrate on that type of format. Believe it or not I’ve seen Snoop sing when he didn’t use the F-bomb every other word. You need to understand your perception is fine, but don’t go throwing it around like it’s gospel.

To intimate you know how I feel about anything and to print it as such is bullshit and I call you on it. That half-time show was crap, and I stand by that. But you seem to say it was only a big deal because Bush was President and that let all the right-wingers have their say. If clinton was President, I guess they would have been up for a Tony as some off-off broadway show?

Your extrapolations crack me up. Then to somehow come back in with the finger thing as a cross comparison is sweet.

You might actually convince someone that there is a correlation.

I’m Bush’n you right now

71

[quote]ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
How do you know anything about the man other than what many PR workers are working over time to present to you?

Now, now. They know he was elected so obviously he is a demi-god who can do no wrong. Weren’t you following along on election night, it was a massive landslide and the democrats got zero votes.

vroom in all seriousness, using the Prof logic (which is and has always been very poor) how do we know anything about anyone?

How can you even cast a vote for anyone?

[/quote]

Sounds more like Al “I’m so ripped I don’t even have muscle” Shades logic then PX logic, Zeb.

72

[quote]vroom in all seriousness, using the Prof logic (which is and has always been very poor) how do we know anything about anyone?

How can you even cast a vote for anyone?
[/quote]

Oh come now, I’m sure you (and Joe) could tell that at least I was being sarcastic.

Honestly though, I don’t have a problem with someone flipping the bird. I don’t even have a problem with Janet flipping the nip. I wish more women would follow her example.

However, I should be allowed to worry about Bush with respect to his joking and partying attitude and whether it adds up to something important – very much a parallel to the sexual predator argument concerning Clinton.

Taking his actions altogether, with respect to Clinton, there are indeed troubling issues. This shouldn’t be a condemnation of liberals, it should be a condemnation of Clinton, especially if true. This shouldn’t win me any points with die-hard liberals.

On the opposite side again, if Bush is showing a pattern of behavior that indicates he isn’t taking things seriously enough, for most of his life, then that is fair to consider as a condemnation. He may or may not have become a different man than he was, who can truly say?

I hope you see this isn’t bashing, but hopefully an even handed consideration of potential character problems with two different men who have been president at two different times. Am I fairly being critical of both?

73

[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Me sir–you do not intimidate!
[/quote]

Do you know how many times I have needed to say that to someone who truly did not intimidate me? Exactly, the answer is never. I have never run up to a little old lady and screamed, “You, ma’am, do not intimidate me!!”. Apparently, you just had to let me know that for future reference. Thanks for the info. I’ll get right on the act of not intimidating you…because lord knows I tried. smiley faced thingy rolling eyes multiplied by 2

[quote]Prof
First and foremost, you know that he hasn’t changed as much as I do he has. It’s our perception, and quite frankly that is allreality is.[/quote]

Actually, I base my opinion on his actions. You ignore his actions and base them on your beliefs.

[quote]
On the second I say You are full of shit. I didn’t sit through the whole half-time, but lucky for me I saw about the last one minute of the JT-JJ fake fuck-fest. So there, you’re not quite as smart as you think you are. Quit judging everyone from your damn self-perceived ivory tower.[/quote]

Ivory tower? I like black, son. It fits me well. Ebony tower, maybe? How about the Chocolate tower? The Brown Sky Scraper? Either way, this was an adult performance act, and again, you tuned in expecting something other than their usual routine? Why?

[quote]
Just because someone is on MTV doesn’t mean they are gonna strip and gyrate on that type of format. Believe it or not I’ve seen Snoop sing when he didn’t use the F-bomb every other word. You need to understand your perception is fine, but don’t go throwing it around like it’s gospel.[/quote]

Uh, that’s how Snoop raps anyway. He has done that since the early 90’s. He doesn’t CHANGE his style, that is his style. Why did you expect Janet Jackson to change her performance style? If it were Madonna, you would have expected Elmo from Sesame Street?

[quote]
To intimate you know how I feel about anything and to print it as such is bullshit and I call you on it. That half-time show was crap, and I stand by that. But you seem to say it was only a big deal because Bush was President and that let all the right-wingers have their say. If clinton was President, I guess they would have been up for a Tony as some off-off broadway show? [/quote]

What? No one has added Bush into this particular circumstance. I said CONSERVATIVES. You know, the same ones who think that everyone should avoid abortions because of their own personal standards.

[quote]
Your extrapolations crack me up. Then to somehow come back in with the finger thing as a cross comparison is sweet.[/quote]

I can see you are slow. This went back to Janet because of Zeb’s comments. It was not anything that anyone else brought up.

No, you are all up in Bush, but you aren’t having that effect on anyone else.

74

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I never called Jacksons little show “porno” did I? Nope guess not! It was inappropriate for children, but I never called it porno. [/quote]

Hmmm.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
According to your incredibly flawed logic (as usual) there should be nothing wrong with airing porno on prime time.[/quote]

You made a direct anaology between that action and porno right here. Who would accept that as meaning anything else?

[quote]
You also used that museum crap before. You know (no, maybe you don’t, come to think of it) it’s all about “context.” Jackson was trying to revive a fading career with the boob flash. She is not exactly a work of art huh? A fine sculpture of the human body is another matter.[/quote]

There you go again with the personal attacks on the woman. Her CD still went platinum. I am not sure if you cna actually call that “faded”, but apparently in Zeb’s world, that is what it means.

This isn’t porno. Porno should be available for those who want to pay for it, but on public access tv, that is another story. It would depend on if those channels are designated as such. If they are, with the current weapons at parents’ disposal to control their own tv’s, then I see no problem with it under some form of regulation.

75

[quote]vroom wrote:
vroom in all seriousness, using the Prof logic (which is and has always been very poor) how do we know anything about anyone?

How can you even cast a vote for anyone?

Oh come now, I’m sure you (and Joe) could tell that at least I was being sarcastic.

[/quote]

what’d I do?

I wasn’t agreeing with the statement, I just said I didn’t think it was PX logic.

I’m not sure what PX logic is, but that wasn’t it.

76

Prof

Let me say again–I know you weren’t first in your class–you do not/will not intimidate/bully me. Not now not ever.

I know what that means to you, save it.

I didn’t want to acknowlege your black affinity, but seeing how it clouds your judgement, maybe it should be so acknowleged. Conservative does not automatically mean anti-black. You don’t have to be the big race protector. Come down from whatever color tower you troll from and realize that every person from a gifted background is not out to persecute you and yours.

Eye thingy rolling 3 times
you seem to like that reference

My belief in the President comes from his actions since he has been President.
I personally don’t care what he did before that. Who would we elect if we cared what the person did 10-20-30 years ago? On that’s right Obama.
Sqeaky clean right. Just wait.

A mans’ character can change and does change through life. Sometimes through a religious or like transformation, it is drastic and fast. Then you judge his actions from said point.

Show me a picture of him doing something amoral from the office. I believe him to be sincere in his faith and character. You do not. End of discussion, because at this point if you had an epiphany, you would not admit it. Your high moralness would just not allow you to admit mistakes.

You want to pretend to be unaffected by everyone’s arguments, fine. Because you can’t take in new info, process it intelligently, and acknowlege that maybe you could move an inch is not a positive mental function. Your lack of arguing the issues and instead attacking the person is well known.

I don’t expect you to change your style for me.

Before I die though, just once say–You know what, you make a good point’ Not to me now, I know that ain’t about to happen–just once, to someone, before I die please.

77

I jusr read my post and know your answer to the question. Thought I’d save you the time of posting it

Yes, someone has made a good and valid point different from yours

78

[quote]My belief in the President comes from his actions since he has been President.
I personally don’t care what he did before that. Who would we elect if we cared what the person did 10-20-30 years ago? On that’s right Obama.
Sqeaky clean right. Just wait.

A mans’ character can change and does change through life. Sometimes through a religious or like transformation, it is drastic and fast. Then you judge his actions from said point.[/quote]

Wow, do you really feel this way about people, other than presidents?

I know that people can turn around and change, but it isn’t like they aren’t still the same person. If they have trouble making the right choices before, they have to demonstrate to most people that they have changed.

Heck, anyone can claim to be converted, but it is actions that you have to judge by, not simply claims. Really, I don’t see this applicable to real life.

Note, I’m not busting on the president by saying this, I just find your attitude really surprising in this respect – at least the way it has been stated.

People are defined by their actions…

79

[quote]vroom wrote:
My belief in the President comes from his actions since he has been President.
I personally don’t care what he did before that. Who would we elect if we cared what the person did 10-20-30 years ago? On that’s right Obama.
Sqeaky clean right. Just wait.

A mans’ character can change and does change through life. Sometimes through a religious or like transformation, it is drastic and fast. Then you judge his actions from said point.

Wow, do you really feel this way about people, other than presidents?

I know that people can turn around and change, but it isn’t like they aren’t still the same person. If they have trouble making the right choices before, they have to demonstrate to most people that they have changed.

Heck, anyone can claim to be converted, but it is actions that you have to judge by, not simply claims. Really, I don’t see this applicable to real life.

Note, I’m not busting on the president by saying this, I just find your attitude really surprising in this respect – at least the way it has been stated.

People are defined by their actions…[/quote]

People are defined by ALL of their actions–yes.

Yes I do feel that way about people. Why is that crazy. Now obviously I don’t believe Charlie Manson is a changed man becvause he reads the bible. But i like to think that you can tell alot about the collective person by his actions, and moreso by his most recent actions.

What’s the best predicter of future behavior? Past behavior. And you build your past each and every action you take. Now as you move forward you build trust andthat is how you should be viewed.

How is it a bad thing to accept that people change and grow from their 20s to their 30’s and so on forward. I don’t hold it against a person who made poor choices for the rest of their life.

Call me ultruistic

Yes anyone can claim to have been converted. But the last 10 - 15 years are long enougfh for me to say i believe him. That’s enough history for me to be comfortable with my decision/opinion. I am judging by his actions, not just his claims.

80

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey Sasquatch Prof wants us to believe that it’s our fault! LOL, we should have known that ole’ Janet was going to drop the top…His excuse here is as lame as comparing a sitting President committing adultery in the oval office with a private citizen flipping the bird to a camera.

Prof…you are making me laugh, man. Do more posts like that, please![/quote]

i agree not really any comparism between the two,pretty harmless stuff from gb,have too say i had a lot more time for clinton though at least he had a bit of personality and a lot more between the ears,gb is a bit on the slow side and that is being generous