The New And Improved Fashion Board

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
.....during which I consumed my turkey and ham Subway.

This is utterly revolting, especially in the context of this thread, but has everyone seen the disgusting photos of Britney's bare fancy place and butt? You can even see the c-section scar. Even *I* know that you do not go commando when wearing a skirt that barely covers your fancy place, and if you do, you certainly do not get drunk and lounge open-legged in Paris Hilton's car.

She must absolutely have no brain at all to conduct herself thusly whilst staging her 'comeback" and battling for custody of her kids.

She does not have a pretty vagina, that is for sure.

When I mentioned this to a friend of mine, she told me I'd know better than she, as she hasn't seen all that many.

And then she worried that hers wasn't pretty.

I assured her it was, even though I've never seen it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
.....during which I consumed my turkey and ham Subway.

This is utterly revolting, especially in the context of this thread, but has everyone seen the disgusting photos of Britney's bare fancy place and butt? You can even see the c-section scar. Even *I* know that you do not go commando when wearing a skirt that barely covers your fancy place, and if you do, you certainly do not get drunk and lounge open-legged in Paris Hilton's car.

She must absolutely have no brain at all to conduct herself thusly whilst staging her 'comeback" and battling for custody of her kids.

she managed to stretch the ground from "saving herself for marriage" to "flashing beaver from the car of a whore" over several years. It's like Less says, for a career to have legs a star needs to be able to get progressively nastier. I don't think she's moving too quickly. she has plenty more ground to cover.

[Borat]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
Probably not in your presence. But a "Ping. Pow! Swish. is different from an orgasm anyway.

What is this "organism" from which you speak?

Is it when woman scream loud "Nyet Borat îñòàíîâèòå ïîëó÷èòå ñ ìåíÿ?"

Borat like new sexy talk better than talk of Michael Richards retard.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Let's get something straight here. There are no long and twisted rationalizations. I am not saying anyone should have a free pass when making racially insensitive remarks.

Really? We can end this discussion right now if you agree with this statement:

Even though African Americans have experienced oppression and enslavement for four hundred years and experience institutional oppression right now, such prior history and current circumstances does not make it OK for them to make racist comments about any other races or ethnic groups in this country.

Do you have a problem with that statement?

If you don't, I don't know what we have been arguing about.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall What I originally said was that you got all hot and bothered because you didn't want to hear anything about the historical legacy of racism in this country because individuals are responsible for their own actions, etc.

The four hundred years of racism came up after we were already into the discussion. Talk about tangents. Now all of a sudden you have chosen a tangent and are saying that was what our argument was about. I had no problem with the facts you stated, I just had a problem with the conclusion you drew from them. I did not argue with the truth of the facts asserted (that blacks have been oppressed for four hundred years etc.) the problem I have is that you use that history to say that African Americans can make racist comments. Otherwise, why did you even bring up the history?

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall What I said in response was the following: "You can choose to walk around pretending that that time is long over,

When did I ever say this or imply this? Where do you get this stuff? Stop pretending I said stuff that I didn't.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
because the only negative impact you feel is when, as pony said, a black person can feel comfortable making a racial joke at your expense because of the truth of historical racism and who it affects. And look at the fit you throw when someone even mentions the prospect."

Who threw a fit? You just carved out an exception of when it was OK to make racist remarks and I called you on it. The point of the discussion was what Michael Richards said and whether it would be OK if someone who was black did the same thing to a white crowd. I never said that the racism "occurred a long time ago". I never even implied that there has not been historical racism and that racism still continues today. You simply ascribed that argument to me and then criticized me for it. The only thing I have ever said is that there should be no exceptions when it comes to racism or racist comments. I have said it over and over again and yet you try and pretend the discussion is about something else.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall The point I was making was that you are purposely ignoring the privileged position the historical application of racial prejudice in this country has put you in,

When I have I ignored it? When have I denied that? All I said was that no one should be given a pass when it comes to racist comments. Why do you keep making up arguments where none exist?

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall yet you are all upset at the prospect that black people may feel more comfortable making a racial joke at your expense.

When have I ever implied or said that such a thing would make me upset. I have never discussed how such talk would affect me. What I disagree with is you trying to carve out an exception for when it is OK for people to make racist comments. I will say it again: It is not OK to give African Americans a pass to make racist comments because it serves to defeat the effort to make racist comments unacceptable in other circumstances. I have never made this personal.

If you can agree with me that racist comments are never OK, without exception, and if Michael Richards was black and had made those comments to some Jewish, Italian or Irish people, it would have also been horrendous, then we have nothing to argue about.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall You've continued to ignore the points I've made about historical prejudice and the current power dynamic in this country

No I have not. You haven't told me anything that I either did not know or haven’t heard before a thousand times. I have never argued with what you said. But you brought up those points to excuse black people making racist comments about whites. Have you not? Why else would you bring them up? Really. What other point where you trying to make when you brought up the historical racism? It is using those points to carve out an exception for racist activities that I have a problem with.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall and have focused solely on whether it is okay or not for anyone to make racially insensitive remarks.

That is because that is what we were talking about. You said it was OK for certain people in certain circumstances to make such remarks and I disagreed with you. That is the only thing we are arguing about. Everything else is a tangent or a pretend argument you have created. I can't believe you are criticizing me for trying to stay focused on the issue at hand and then at the same time criticizing me for going off on tangents.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall This is because you are simple and cannot understand anything other than the point you are holding onto like a starved dog. You just don't get it and it can't be explained to you.

That is exactly what I am doing. Holding on like a starving dog is just another way of saying that I am trying to stick to the point. Stay focused on what we are arguing about. You tried to change the subject or pretend we were arguing about something else.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall Like I said and I don't know if you are incapable of listening or if you are incapable of understanding. Slavery was nothing new when it happened here. The idea that a whole race of people could be turned into property (in which people had legal ownership rights, supported by the government), enslaved for generations based simply on their skin color was a new one.

Although this is a tangent off the main argument, I will point out that what you are saying is flat out wrong. That is simply not true. Africans were taken as slaves to Brazil and Cuba under that understanding (in the first decade of the sixteenth century) a hundred years before any settlements were even made in North America. So the idea that black Africans and their offspring would be slaves in perpetuity was something the Spanish and Portuguese came up with. In addition, many ethnic groups have been placed in permanent servitude by other groups. What do you think the whole caste system is about in India? This goes as far back as the Israelis in Egypt.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall And these last two paragraphs simply don't make much sense in the context of your argument. First, based on your experiences in Japan, you want to say that racial prejudice is our natural state of being and that we needn't look to our own history to understand it. Next, you want to look to everyone's history but our own to see what works and what doesn't. You are fatally inconsistent and not very bright.

I never said we don't look at own history to understand it. You know I didn't say that, so why do you make stuff up like that? I said that we need to look at our own history and the history of other countries. I am making a simple point you can't argue with. Racial prejudice is a universal problem throughout the world and many societies have tried to fix the problem (although many have not, just accepted it as OK - like Japan). It is in our benefit to see what remedies have been tried and what remedies have worked. How can you possibly argue with that?

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall Again, you are countering your own argument. Everything you needed to know was based on the fact that all cultures have some form of racism. Therefore there is no need to study our own history.

When did I say "everything we need to know". I just said studying other cultures would be helpful in understanding our own problem. I never said that there is no need to study our own history, and that conclusion can not be logically drawn from anything I have said.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
Now it seems you want to study the history of racism in every other culture. .

Not every culture, but many cultures. Is there something wrong with that?

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall I never said we should exclude the lessons learned by other cultures. You said we should ignore where our own history has placed us. You don't make any sense at all.
.

When did I say "ignore" our history.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall I am still waiting on your evidence of those black schools using oppressive light-skinned admissions preferences.
.

Do you really want to get into this when you criticized me for going off on tangents? Who is focusing on tangents now? We were arguing whether, (considering Whites hold all the power and Blacks don't) whether it is acceptable for blacks to make racist comments about whites, or whether it would be OK for a black person to make comments like Michael Richards made to a group of white people. .

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
And you need to understand the difference between something having an oppressive effect on a couple of people and "oppression." When you've developed that understanding (as well as the understanding of "institutional"), we can continue this over pm, if you like.
.

How is that going to shed any light over when it is OK for Black people to make racist comments. You say I need to understand this in order for us to have this discussion. But even though I do understand it, I don't understand why it is relevant unless you are saying that this "institutional oppression" makes it OK for African Americans to make racist comments. Otherwise, why are you bringing it up.

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall I am simply not going to sit down and explain to you why power is so important in a discussion of race and prejudice.

We are discussing something very specific. Whether or not it is OK for African Americans to make racist comments. Now you are trying to pretend we are having some general discussion about race relations and telling me what I need to know about such a general discussion.

We can end this discussion right now if you agree with this statement:

Even though African Americans have experienced oppression and enslavement for four hundred years and experience institutional oppression right now, such prior history and current circumstances does not make it OK for them to make racist comments about other races in this country.

Do you have a problem with that statement?

[Borat]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is simply not true. You can't possibly mean that. Why all the focus on the pain and suffering African Americans have gone through, and their current power relationship, than to argue that they get a pass when it comes to racist comments. I have consistently only argued on point, and everything I have said is to back up that one point, that there should be no exceptions made for racist comments. What do you think you are arguing about?



The four hundred years of racism came up after we were already into the discussion. Talk about tangents. Now all of a sudden you have chosen a tangent and are saying that was what our argument was about. I had no problem with the facts you stated, I just had a problem with the conclusion you drew from them. I did not argue with the truth of the facts asserted (that blacks have been opressed for four hundred years etc.) the problem I have is that you use that history to say that African Americans can make racist comments. Otherwise, why did you even bring up the history?




When did I ever say this or imply this? Where do you get this stuff? Stop pretending I said stuff that I didn't.





Who threw a fit? You just carved out an exception of when it was OK to make racist remarks and I called you on it. The point of the discussion was what Michael Richards said and whether it would be OK if someone who was black did the same thing to a white crowd. I never said that the racism "occurred a long time ago". I never even implied that there has not been historical racism and that racism still continues today. You simply ascribed that argument to me and then critisized me for it. The only thing I have ever said is that there should be no exceptions when it comes to racism or racist comments. I have said it over and over again and yet you try and pretend the discussion is about something else.



When I have I ignored it? When have I denied that? All I said was that no one should be given a pass when it comes to racist comments. Why do you keep making up arguments where none exist?





When have I ever implied or said that such a thing would make me upset. I have never discussed how such talk would effect me. What I disagree with is you trying to carve out an exception for when it is OK for people to make racist comments. I will say it again: It is not OK to give African Americans a pass to make racist comments because it serves to defeat the effort to make racist comments unacceptible in other circumstances. I have never made this personal.

If you can agree with me that racist comments are never OK, without exception, and if Michael Richards was black and had made those comments to some Jewish, Italian or Irish people, it would have also been horrendous, then we have nothing to argue about.



No I have not. You haven't told me anything that I either did not know or havent heard before a thousand times. I have never argued with what you said. But you brought up those points to excuse black people making racist comments about whites. Have you not? Why else would you bring them up? Really. What other point where you trying to make when you brought up the historical racism? It is using those points to carve out an exception for racist activities that I have a problem with.




That is because that is what we were talking about. You said it was OK for certain people in certain circumstances to make such remarks and I disagreed with you. That is the only thing we are arguing about. Everything else is a tangent or a pretend argument you have created. I can't believe you are critisizing me ffor trying to stay focused on the issue at hand and then at the same time critisizing me for going off on tangents.



That is exactly what I am doing. Holding on like a starving dog is just another way of saying that I am trying to stick to the point. Stay focused on what we are arguing about. You tried to change the subject or pretend we were arguing about something else.



Although this is a tangent off the main argument, I will point out that what you are saying is flat out wrong. That is simply not true. Africans were taken as slaves to Brazil and Cuba under that understanding (in the first decade of the sixteenth century) a hundred years before any settlements were even made in North America. So the idea that black Africans and their offspring would be slaves in perpetuity was something the Spanish and Portugese came up with. In addition, many ethnic groups have been placed in permanent servitude by other groups. What do you think the whole caste system is about in India? This goes as far back as the Israelis in Eqypt.




I never said we don't look at own history to understand it. You know I didn't say that, so why do you make stuff up like that? I said that we need to look at our own history and the history of other countries. I am making a simple point you can't argue with. Racial prejudice is a universal problem throughout the world and many societies have tried to fix the problem (although many have not, just accepted it as OK - like Japan). It is in our benefit to see what remedies have been tried and what remedies have worked. How can you possibly argue with that?



When did I say "everything we need to know". I just said studying other cultures would be helpful in understanding our own problem. I never said that there is no need to study our own history, and that conclusion can not be logically drawn from anything I have said.



Not every culture, but many cultures. Is there something wrong with that?



When did I say "ignore" our history.



Do you really want to get into this when you critisized me for going off on tangents? Who is focusing on tangents now? We were arguing whether, (considering Whites hold all the power and Blacks don't) whether it is acceptible for blacks to make racist comments about whites, or whether it would be OK for a black person to make comments like Michael Richards made to a group of white people. .



How is that going to shed any light over when it is OK for Black people to make racist comments. You say I need to understand this in order for us to have this discussion. But even though I do understand it, I don't understand why it is relevent unless you are saying that this "institutional oppression" makes it OK for African Americans to make racist comments. Otherwise, why are you bringing it up.





We are discussing something very specific. Whether or not it is OK for African Americans to make racist comments. Now you are trying to pretend we are having some general disucssion about race relations and telling me what I need to know about such a general discussion.

In my country man who talk this much have choice: He choose to cut off tongue or khazak.

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is simply not true. You can't possibly mean that. Why all the focus on the pain and suffering African Americans have gone through, and their current power relationship, than to argue that they get a pass when it comes to racist comments. I have consistently only argued on point, and everything I have said is to back up that one point, that there should be no exceptions made for racist comments. What do you think you are arguing about?



The four hundred years of racism came up after we were already into the discussion. Talk about tangents. Now all of a sudden you have chosen a tangent and are saying that was what our argument was about. I had no problem with the facts you stated, I just had a problem with the conclusion you drew from them. I did not argue with the truth of the facts asserted (that blacks have been opressed for four hundred years etc.) the problem I have is that you use that history to say that African Americans can make racist comments. Otherwise, why did you even bring up the history?




When did I ever say this or imply this? Where do you get this stuff? Stop pretending I said stuff that I didn't.





Who threw a fit? You just carved out an exception of when it was OK to make racist remarks and I called you on it. The point of the discussion was what Michael Richards said and whether it would be OK if someone who was black did the same thing to a white crowd. I never said that the racism "occurred a long time ago". I never even implied that there has not been historical racism and that racism still continues today. You simply ascribed that argument to me and then critisized me for it. The only thing I have ever said is that there should be no exceptions when it comes to racism or racist comments. I have said it over and over again and yet you try and pretend the discussion is about something else.



When I have I ignored it? When have I denied that? All I said was that no one should be given a pass when it comes to racist comments. Why do you keep making up arguments where none exist?





When have I ever implied or said that such a thing would make me upset. I have never discussed how such talk would effect me. What I disagree with is you trying to carve out an exception for when it is OK for people to make racist comments. I will say it again: It is not OK to give African Americans a pass to make racist comments because it serves to defeat the effort to make racist comments unacceptible in other circumstances. I have never made this personal.

If you can agree with me that racist comments are never OK, without exception, and if Michael Richards was black and had made those comments to some Jewish, Italian or Irish people, it would have also been horrendous, then we have nothing to argue about.



No I have not. You haven't told me anything that I either did not know or havent heard before a thousand times. I have never argued with what you said. But you brought up those points to excuse black people making racist comments about whites. Have you not? Why else would you bring them up? Really. What other point where you trying to make when you brought up the historical racism? It is using those points to carve out an exception for racist activities that I have a problem with.




That is because that is what we were talking about. You said it was OK for certain people in certain circumstances to make such remarks and I disagreed with you. That is the only thing we are arguing about. Everything else is a tangent or a pretend argument you have created. I can't believe you are critisizing me ffor trying to stay focused on the issue at hand and then at the same time critisizing me for going off on tangents.



That is exactly what I am doing. Holding on like a starving dog is just another way of saying that I am trying to stick to the point. Stay focused on what we are arguing about. You tried to change the subject or pretend we were arguing about something else.



Although this is a tangent off the main argument, I will point out that what you are saying is flat out wrong. That is simply not true. Africans were taken as slaves to Brazil and Cuba under that understanding (in the first decade of the sixteenth century) a hundred years before any settlements were even made in North America. So the idea that black Africans and their offspring would be slaves in perpetuity was something the Spanish and Portugese came up with. In addition, many ethnic groups have been placed in permanent servitude by other groups. What do you think the whole caste system is about in India? This goes as far back as the Israelis in Eqypt.




I never said we don't look at own history to understand it. You know I didn't say that, so why do you make stuff up like that? I said that we need to look at our own history and the history of other countries. I am making a simple point you can't argue with. Racial prejudice is a universal problem throughout the world and many societies have tried to fix the problem (although many have not, just accepted it as OK - like Japan). It is in our benefit to see what remedies have been tried and what remedies have worked. How can you possibly argue with that?



When did I say "everything we need to know". I just said studying other cultures would be helpful in understanding our own problem. I never said that there is no need to study our own history, and that conclusion can not be logically drawn from anything I have said.



Not every culture, but many cultures. Is there something wrong with that?



When did I say "ignore" our history.



Do you really want to get into this when you critisized me for going off on tangents? Who is focusing on tangents now? We were arguing whether, (considering Whites hold all the power and Blacks don't) whether it is acceptible for blacks to make racist comments about whites, or whether it would be OK for a black person to make comments like Michael Richards made to a group of white people. .



How is that going to shed any light over when it is OK for Black people to make racist comments. You say I need to understand this in order for us to have this discussion. But even though I do understand it, I don't understand why it is relevent unless you are saying that this "institutional oppression" makes it OK for African Americans to make racist comments. Otherwise, why are you bringing it up.





We are discussing something very specific. Whether or not it is OK for African Americans to make racist comments. Now you are trying to pretend we are having some general disucssion about race relations and telling me what I need to know about such a general discussion.

You know, as annoying as I can be this is annoying also. this back and forth for 3/4 of a length of page. for days on end.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Spanky, Spanky, Spanky

Is anyone reading this other than to count stupids?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
3/4 of a length of page.

I know. I lost. Price is Right rule.

[Fugee]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Is anyone reading this other than to count stupids?

The need to actually read to count stupids kept me from betting on the number.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by patentparanyc
You know, as annoying as I can be this is annoying also. this back and forth for 3/4 of a length of page. for days on end.

Your quoting what you find annoying is even more annoying than the initial annoyingness you quoted.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Fugee
The need to actually read to count stupids kept me from betting on the number.

hmmmmm...........

No need to count. I did the required reading- it was 3. I win!


356-11

[patentparanyc]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Your quoting what you find annoying is even more annoying than the initial annoyingness you quoted.

Yeah, but so is NCS's ability to beat stuff into the ground and split hairs over it. same diff.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Your quoting what you find annoying is even more annoying than the initial annoyingness you quoted.

I know you think you know that I know you know I know what you just said, but actually, I don't know if you really know that I know you know.

No?

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
This was my question from several posts ago and it never got answered!!!!

For the past two days I have really mixed things up by ordering a turkey and ham Subway for lunch as opposed to a plain turkey Subway like I have done for years. The Subway guys act like they barely know me anymore and like I have really thrown them for a loop. That is sortof how I felt when you started posting about squirting. It's not bad, and is in fact quite intriguing, but it just shocked me for some reason. But alas, it looks as though I am going back to turkey and you are going back to not posting about squirting.

I've only squirted once ever. I thought I was peeing then. But I wasn't!! God can be mysterious.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I've only squirted once ever. I thought I was peeing then. But I wasn't!! God can be mysterious.

it sounds like you figured it out, so he wasn't being mysterious; he was being surprising.