Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 306

11-02-2005, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do gay men like pictures of naked guys? I think so, (Penske- you subscribe to Blue Boy still, right?) so it's not the image perceived, it's the perceiver.

The question was the motivation. The subject of the heninous picture is projecting, npi iykwim, what he thinks the receiver wuld find too tempting to resist. Based on what he would want or thinks women want (probablyfrom watching too much porn or hanging out at centerfolds). The receiver meanwhile, is totally squicked.

SlaveNoMore · 11-02-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Secret_Agent_Man
Did your grandpappy say the same thing in 1944 about the Japanese-Americans stuck into prison camps?

S_A_M

My one grandpappy was a German stuck in a Allied prison camp, and the other one was a Marine in the Pacific Rim watching some of his buddies in prison camps be summarily executed, so - in all honesty - the former probably couldn't care less, and the latter was probably upset when then let all those Japanese-Americans out.

sebastian_dangerfield · 11-02-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
WMDs. Now they are in Syria and Iran. Good thing we have such a convenient platform to launch the battles against those two terrorist states.

If by Syrian and Iran you mean the imaginations of Cheney and his aides, I agree.

But, I must confess, I do see your point about Iran. The close alliance between Iran and Iraq from 1979 through to today all but gurantees Hussein spirited the arms to his brothhers in arms in the Iranian regime.

ltl/fb · 11-02-2005, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Dude, I have a news flash for you. As far as news stories go, the Japanese internment is just below the Plant/Page reunion tour of a few years ago.

It may be on your radar screen as a major historical matter, but to 99.9% of this country - and most of the rest of the world - its a "Eh, yeh, how bout that? That wasn't cool" kind of story.

I don't think that Saddam's evil will make an impression on US memories like the Nazis did, but I'm good with people's impression of W's presidency 20 years or so as "really not cool" and, when Bush I comes up, saying "is he that one who did all that stupid shit overseas or whatever?"

Is this sins of the son visited on the father? Hm.

sebastian_dangerfield · 11-02-2005, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I understand you're still recovering from the pork thing, Seb, but this was a pretty weak effort.

S_A_M

No its not. Its a fact. Nobody gives a rats ass about the Japanese Internment.

They built a few momunents and held some ceremonies, but its another non-story to anyone but a few people on the fringe left.

Penske_Account · 11-02-2005, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I think there are some observant jews and muslims that would take issue with that.

Me too, as in solidarity with my jewish and moderate radical Islamic amigos, I no eatta the pig.

Replaced_Texan · 11-02-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Dude, I have a news flash for you. As far as news stories go, the Japanese internment is just below the Plant/Page reunion tour of a few years ago.

It may be on your radar screen as a major historical matter, but to 99.9% of this country - and most of the rest of the world - its a "Eh, yeh, how bout that? That wasn't cool" kind of story.

It kinda got bulldozed over by that WWII story that was taking place at the same time. That seemed to get a bit more press.

But I'm sure your Japanese History 101 professor had it up there in the Top 5 of the 20th century. Maybe he even referred to it as "Our Own Holocaust." Just goes to prove you should never take anything seriously from a person we both know now probably owns a Segway.

What, then, in your opinion, do we care about?

Bad_Rich_Chic · 11-02-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
I took your original statement as a statement that the unalienable rights referenced in the Declaration are not spelled out in the Constitution, obviously a different statement. All we know about the Declaration's unalienable rights in the Declaration is that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. Aren't we talking about life and liberty here?

That having been said, what did you mean - that the RWM Unalienable Rights are a subset of Constitutional Rights, overlap partially with Constitutional Rights, or are wholy separate from Constitutional Rights?

I just meant I wasn't taking a position because I don't think the DoI really helps address the question. The fact that the FF thought (or pretended to for purposes of pissing of Georgie) that certain rights (life, liberty, pursuit of tail, etc.) were inalienable to (rich white male) humanity, and certain similar-looking rights were listed in the Constitution (due process, religion, property), isn't that useful in determining if they would have thought those provision applied to foreigners (or property) outside of the US.

FWIW, I think the founders probably believed that some constitutional protections were inalienable human rights (or were at least in furtherance thereof), but certainly not all, and that there were inalienable human rights that were not expressly enumerated (and didn't need to be because they were, well, inalienable human rights). The conclusion that the "inalienable rights of all men" are not the same as those enshrined in the US Constitution but exist outside of it seems inescapable to me, based on both the nature of the enumerated rights (most of which are, in their specific iterations, obviously contingent and/or alienable) and the very nature of the constitutional document (the fact that it is amendable, and therefore any rights enumerated therein may be rescinded, even more than the 9th A).

So I vote "partial overlap."

SlaveNoMore · 11-02-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Replaced_Texan
What, then, in your opinion, do we care about?

Football.

Penske_Account · 11-02-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Perhaps I do too. How do you know?

S_A_M

Perhaps I talked to you earlier today.......

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

I knew it.

Anyhow, you apparently need to toughen up to better withstand the hurly-burly of modern political discourse.

S_A_M

I really thought classless and malicious slander was beneath you. I'm disappointed.

Hank Chinaski · 11-02-2005, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess
The question was the motivation. The subject of the heninous picture is projecting, npi iykwim, what he thinks the receiver wuld find too tempting to resist. Based on what he would want or thinks women want (probablyfrom watching too much porn or hanging out at centerfolds). The receiver meanwhile, is totally squicked.

I was trying to help analize. I'm much more helpful on PB than FB.

Why would gay guys buy gay porno? Hell if you think about who even linked to those pictures here is someone maybe a guy- nfh/ncs- one of them

11-02-2005, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Here's a preview:

"Scalito's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught about evolution........"

After that he is going to smash a succession of watermelons with his penis.

The dems have a highly refined sense of satirical humour.

But what about the Latinos? Will they still be mowing my lawn?

Penske_Account · 11-02-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I have no idea whether our Constitution applies to our conduct there, and don't particularly care.

In my view, it should be stopped both because: (a) I think it is a bad policy for a number of practical reasons, and (b) what I expect occurs there is simply morally wrong and in violation of the UMC. [I would be glad to be proven wrong on that latter point.]

I thought you were a big fan of natural law reasoning, Penske.

S_A_M

Self-defence is allowed.

Sparklehorse · 11-02-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess
The question was the motivation. The subject of the heninous picture is projecting, npi iykwim, what he thinks the receiver wuld find too tempting to resist. Based on what he would want or thinks women want (probablyfrom watching too much porn or hanging out at centerfolds). The receiver meanwhile, is totally squicked.

If men like this had a decent understanding of the female psyche, they wouldn't have to resort to Casual Encounters and its ilk to begin with.

Penske_Account · 11-02-2005, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
McCarthyism is no footnote.

The terrorist imprisonment issue will be a footnote in a text college kids will buy and never open. It'll be discussed by people who think Joan Baez would've made a great senator.

Understand this - Americans are nothing if not utterly self-absrobed and completely self-righteous. You think anyone other than a few crazy liberals give a flying shit what happens to prisoners at Guatanamo Bay? NPR won't even talk about it in a few years.

The story has no legs. The Times doesn't even give it any ink anymore.

No. One. Cares. And no one ever will.

I lurve you. PLatonically. Nttawwt.