Posted on 02/01/2004 5:37:46 PM PST by mattdono
Edited on 02/01/2004 6:30:27 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Moderator note: Do not post the photo, links are fine.
Yes, I "comprehende", and I have no argument with this.
.You mean other than the 1st amendment, I assume.
I don't know. You tell me. Does this country have decency laws? I thought it did.
Sure, lots of them, in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the Declaration of Independence, and the 1st, 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution. Unfortunately, no one, including the supreme court, seems to know what the language of decency laws actually mean, or what indecency actually is--other than that it annoys a large bloc of conservative voters, who can't seem to find the time to read their founding documents with their brights turned on.
Yes, well, not exactly a federal offense, is it?: "poor taste". I agree that it was in poor taste, as was, for my money, the rest of this overhyped, steroid-driven roman coleusem act. However, I don't have any plans to demand the destruction of some people's careers over "poor taste".
What kind of whacked out homoerotic stuff are you into, man?
Hey, I'm not the one glued to my screen watching guys bashing each other's brains out for a prize while gyrating, half-naked woman goad them on.
I see. So,...is it your contention that the two teams on the football field are co-operating toward a common goal, using polite, but pursuasive rhetoric to advance their agendas?
Well, that is what people are outraged about. Most people wouldn't know what the establishment clause is, but it doesn't change their reaction or their concern for what the vast majority of people consider to be inappropriate for children to view.
the rest of this overhyped, steroid-driven roman coleusem act.
Ok, cut down on the hyperbole. We get it; you don't like football. Fine. It's a free country. Many others do. And while you have a right to intone that all the rest of us are somehow Cro-Magnon because we play or watch football, doesn't mean you are right.
In fact, sir, I played football for over 12 years. I have a BA and an MBA and my IQ (if you believe in IQ tests, which I really don't) was 162, so it doesn't appear that I am of the mindset that you described/intoned.
I don't have any plans to demand the destruction of some people's careers over "poor taste".
Well, luckily, people that didn't like the performance have free speech and the free market.
If Ms. Jackson and Mr. Timberlake (or their handlers) aren't smart enough to know the venue that are performing at and the potential backlash and/or destruction of their own career for doing something that clearly flies in the face of conventional wisdom, that's their problem. The only comments that have been specifically directed at Ms. Jackson or Mr. Timberlake was the run-of-the-mill "slut", "jerk", and "don't buy their album" variety. And, while the "slut" and "jerk"-type comments aren't the most eloquent, they no doubt reflect the visceral reaction that those individuals had. Discount that as much as you like, but it doesn't change it.
Further, is that really demanding the destruction of their careers? I don't think so. It is them excercising their right of free speech and their rights, as consumers, to buy or not to buy their album. Luckily, we also have the right to free assembly and if a common belief is found in that group (such as not to buy the album), then so be it.
Contrary to your comment about the destruction of Ms. Jackson's or Mr. Timberlake's career, in fact, the loudest chorus I have heard was from those calling for action against CBS, MTV, the NFL (which I don't think you would mind, only because it seems to suit your view of football), and/or AOL.
In a way, I could agree with your seeming sentiment about the illegitimacy of the FCC itself, but I don't think that is what many are necessarily calling for. I think that most are using their power as a consumer to tell CBS, MTV, the NFL, and/or AOL that they simply aren't interested in their product because CBS, MTV, the NFL, and/or AOL didn't have the good sense to be involved and/or concerned about the performance that they either broadcast, produced, consented to, or sponsored, respectively.
Maybe calling on the FCC is simply the easiest why to try to accomplish that goal, vis-a-vis fines and/or other regulations? Probably. But, that is what the posts you are seeing here and the dicussions you are hearing/seeing on the radio/TV.
However, most will do the most effective thing: turn the channel. Which, interestingly, gets to the heart of the matter about why CBS, MTV, the NFL, and/or AOL should have be concerned: it is their product.
Now, did the contract to perform include such stipulations? Probably not.
P.S. Where were the "gyrating, half-naked woman (sic)" (cheerleaders, I assume) during the Super Bowl?
I honestly don't remember seeing any cheerleaders. And, neither should you....since, you know, you don't watch that kind of thing.
Which brings up my last point: how the hell could you have seen any gyrating women or Ms. Jackson's nipple if you weren't watching? Hmmm...
Hmm. Interesting. Of course, that is not what I meant. But, for someone who claims not to watch football, you know a lot about it.
And, please, don't insult my intelligence. You specfically described it the way you did to imply either football is comprised of 1) a bunch of Cro-Magnons wanting to kill each other or 2) a bunch of latent homos that enjoy jumping onto other men.
Your creativity with the language specifically masks your point so that when you are called on it, you can make another creative passage denying or providing misdirection from your statement.
If you want to say, "Football is played by idiots" or "Football is played by a bucnh of F*gs", then say so.
Show some spine, speak/type in regular language.
Kindly show me where I claimed not to watch football. I said it was inappropriate for impressionable children to watch superbowl football, and I cited the rather painfully obvious reasons I thought so. None of which, I note, have ellicited a defense, as yet.
Show some spine, speak/type in regular language.
Alternatively, how about if you show a rudimentary sense of good manners, and stop putting words in my mouth I never uttered. I happen to like football--in my yard, or down at the park.
I never watch the superbowl. What has that to do with the price of tea in china?
I wasn't actually thinking about their careers, although I note that several of the hot-headed comments on this thread were addressed in that direction. What I was thinking about is that FCC censure or investigation will cause some middle manager heads to roll at CBS, MTV and the NFL. Kind of a traditional sacrifice to the mob these days.
Since I didn't watch, I don't know. I guess they considered a slinky-dressed JJ and 3 other half-naked, kinkily dressed rock stars, playing gladiator, sufficient.
I honestly don't remember seeing any cheerleaders.
Right. You probably have no idea where I got the notion that half-naked gyrating cheerleaders are somehow associated with football.
Puritan attitudes toward healthy, co-operative sexual expression = married sex only = fewer fatherless chidren = less poverty = less crime = lower gov't spending/taxation. Not to mention the number of communicable diseases associated with sexual incontinence.
I think puritan attitudes towards sex served this Republic very well indeed and it is a pity we have abandoned them.
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.