But now that you bring it up, here, enjoy…
Both hands on the keyboard, please. : )
Posted on 05/04/2005 5:59:04 AM PDT by OESY
(I'm such a Marx Brothers fan, my screenname here was briefly 'Dr. Hackenbush' --but too many FReepers thought I was claiming to be a medical doctor. So I dropped it.)
Monty Python reruns and movies are a little problematic, so we waited with those until the kids were older. Same with Airplane and 'Whose Line is it Anyway?' (for the record, we like the Brit version better).
The beauty of the Marx brothers' movies is that you can sit there and watch them with your children, and you're all laughing your heads off. The innuendo is so brilliantly subtle, your little kids don't even notice it while they're howling over the slapstick.
Not so with the First Lady's shtick the other night. The sexual innuendo of some of those jokes could hardly have been more heavy handed -- no matter how many FReepers absurdly claim their innocence (and our 'dirty-mindedness').
And this is where I think a lot of the problem lies. She's the First Lady, for Pete's sake! Is sexual innuendo ever appropriate for a First Lady? (Can we even imagine debating this question only a few years ago?)
Here we had this lovely and gracious looking woman, conservatively coiffed and clad in ethereal yellow chiffon -- and suddenly out of her mouth came pouring jokes about husbandly sexual inadequacy, suburban fornication, male strippers wearing thongs, and the milking of male horses. Not while we expected while we sat there with our children!
Was the laughter at those jokes the kind of shocked laughter you used to see in audiences watching a Lenny Bruce routine forty years ago? (Yes, there were some great clean jokes in Laura's act too, but nobody's paying attention to them.)
Actually, it's "I got mine. Now you're going to get yours." (And to think, I first pulled this line on leftists at the University of Michigan, nearly 20 years ago.
Someone here provided me with a valuable insight. At least the Left recognizes the truth of "the common good," even if their prescription for achieving it is incorrect. The "South Park Conservatives" have jettisoned the concept for pure selfishness.
It's a belief that individuality requires that morality not be imposed by governmental command. Most recognize that morality exists, but the demands of morality must be figured out by the individual. How could God accept a moral life, if it is compelled, instead of freely chosen?
It would be selfishness, if we wanted freedom for ourselves only. However, we recognize that all deserve it -- and put limits on ourselves based on our recognition that others have the right to act as they believe is in their interest.
You are correct, at least in my case, in that I don't believe in a common good. Or perhaps, it would be more accurate to say that the common good is not so good for those who aren't common.
LOL!
I didn't see that on this thread. And there it is again. Name calling. Someone is a prude because you disagree with their idea of what is right and wrong? What do you hope to gain by labeling them prudes?
For the record, I think Mrs. Bush (who I have met and who I admire greatly) made a mistake with some of what she said. I wish she hadn't done it, but I don't think it will cause her much harm (and I doubt she cares much). On the other hand, it is right and good that we discuss this kind of thing. But we don't have to call names to do so. How about we at least try to understand where those we disagree with on a particular issue are coming from. Of course, that doesn't get nearly the laughs! :)
susie
Well hrmpt,
They are definately off the guest list for the Twilight Cotillion Mud Wrestle.
But now that you bring it up, here, enjoy…
Both hands on the keyboard, please. : )
My Ralph's is smack dab in the middle of what used to be called Hillcrest --- it's now called GAYcrest: the largest populace of homosexuals and lesbians outside of San FranFreakshow.
See why, I am hesitant to buy the produce at Ralph's? LOL
If I stand in the corner, hoot, howl, clap, and jump up and down, will that help at all, or will someone assume I am dancing and a rave breaks out?
;-)
I'm sorry, I didn't see that post call Laura Bush any names. Did I miss something?
susie
I'd say that obscenity is not automatically funny. However, obscenity can be used in humor -- and can be used humorously.
The "South Park Conservative" movement must also be addressed because it's a genuine and significant phenomenon, although misidentified, as she states. A more appropriate label would be "South Park Libertarians," or libertines. Conservatism without morals. Or, "I got mine, now leave me alone."
Needs to be addressed by who? The prigs among us? Conservatism without morals? That's NOT condescending, is it, dirt?
Depends on how bad you dance...
You may get a shot of Dilantin instead ;)
Maybe you're right. This might be a sign we're winning!
We're only here on DAY 5 of these threads, because we can't permit the trashing of First Lady Laura.
I agree with Michelle and I'm actually heartened to see at least SOME people were put off by Mrs Bush's jokes. The culture in the U.S. is so vulgar anymore I'm surprised anyone even speaks up about it. Good for Michelle!
Uh, no, I would say it was meant as a larger observation of a phenomenon. If you disagree, perhaps you could offer up a counter argument isntead of just telling him to get over himself - as Celtjew Libertarian did quite nicely in post #402.
Well, that's the drift of this conversation; lots and lots of anal retentive types wanting to decide just what a "real" conservative should think, see, listen to, laugh at, and do.
I remember when real conservatives wanted the government OUT of our homes and bedrooms; now there appears to be a small group that is all bent out of shape because they can't foist their "values" on us and insist on denigrading the rest of us who they deem not worthy.
Clean up your own yard, and leave everyone else the hell alone. It's prigs like you that are more offensive than a male horse joke.
I can see that!
Oh go for it.
If a rave DOES break out, we're ahead in this game as far as *I* am concerened.
So, if you don't see it, it must not be true? Well, I guess that works out well for you.
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.