Posted on 05/04/2005 5:59:04 AM PDT by OESY
Several things to remember:
1) I do not get out much and I am easily entertained.
(therefore I am easily impressed)
2) I DID say "matinee". I would NOT pay full price, unless somebody paid for my ticket.
3) Beer is served at the theatre I like. I am less judgemental when there is beer.
4) I NEVER listen to reviewers. And Roger hasn't been the same since hiss buddy died.
Caveat emptor!
(but i really think you will have a good time if you go with friends and don't take it too seriously....)
Then she shouldn't complain about the language the other side is using, given her posts.
Which should be blindingly obvious, except you are more interested in circular arguments than actual debate. You might want to look at Celtjew Libertarian's posts to see who someone can present the other side of the argument in a distinguished and civil manner.
But many of them used a lot of innuendo -- profane ideas without the profane language, if you will. Which was basically what Laura Bush's act was.
You might want to check your own posts. Oh yeah, many of them were deleted along with the thread yesterday.
In that light, Laura Bush's off-color jokes, in a forum intended for adults, were giving a metaphorical finger to the terrorists. She was, indeed, standing up for one of the main reasons that I voted for President Bush.
Kathleen Parker made the same point in her latest column:
"I was right there with them, grateful for the humor and appreciative as ever for Mrs. Bush's humanizing effect on the presidency and our nation. But beyond the jokes, my personal mirth was closely tied to another punch line — the one nobody said but that I kept thinking as she delivered one-liners: Good thing she ain't in Saudi Arabia.
Or the Taliban's Afghanistan. Or prewar Iraq. Or northern Nigeria today. Or any number of Islamic theocracies where women who disobey their husbands — or walk down the street uncovered or unaccompanied by a male family member — are flogged, beheaded or stoned to death, depending on the whims of the ruling fathers."
LOL. I see the Perpetually Disturbed Holier Than Thou group still can't let it go. It's sad.
I'm not whining. I'm LAUGHING.
You, on the otherhand, are angry.
Uh, bonfire, I'm not the one complaining about the language the other side is using while saying they need to get laid. It's called a D-O-U-B-L-E S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D. As in do as I say, not as I do.
You are complaining about the langauage the other side is using - as you coarsen the debate yourself.
You, on the otherhand, are angry.
You, apparently, must think it is fun to attack other posters who disagree with you. Such a lovely testament to your character, Howlin. It must do you proud.
"You might want to look at Celtjew Libertarian's posts to see who someone can present the other side of the argument in a distinguished and civil manner."
Must have been someone using your computer.
I don't know. This site is looking more like the Angry Men Who Want to Keep the Little Woman in Her Place forum. And we all know what that leads to. LOL
The PDHTT's??
You, apparently, must think it is fun to attack other posters who disagree with you. Such a lovely testament to your character, Howlin. It must do you proud.
Ah, pot, kettle?
You have friends?!
More importantly, THEY SERVE BEER IN MOVIE THEATERS OVER THERE???!!!
I'm teh envious.
:^)
LOL.
And such loving, generous Christian attitudes, have you noticed?
And we're told, five days in a row now, that the First Lady just isn't quite Christian enough. Or conservative enough. Or ladylike enough.
You know...the usual nonsense that the angry men spout about when they are unable to control their own lives. They try to control through typing. LOL
lolol That is funny. And shows that Mrs. Bush did a fine job for the occasion.
Please show me where I have attacked other people for their opinion on this matter. I am after a few people who believe it is OK to viciously attack those who disagree with them. Who say the posters who disagree have their minds in the gutter when it is a reasonable interpretation of the joke to conclude what they are saying. Who say the other side is obsessed with things equine when it was the First Lady who raised the topic in the first place. In other words, I'm against the kind of attack that we see on DU - shrill but with no substance -meant to stifle debate instead of encouraging it. That kind of crap was poison during the Terri Schiavo episode and it drove some good posters away. You may think that's a good thing. I don't.
And I've had enough of your circular nonsense as well. You may have the last word. Be sure to lobby Jimrob to get some of my posts removed so you can remain convinced that yours is the high ground.
If they were such "Manly Men", wouldn't they be at their jobs, building a deck, milking a horse or somethin'? Instead they are fussin' and hand wringing over a woman!!
No conservative uses this level of vitriol to attack a First Lady for benign jokes made within the context of a roast of her husband.
The jokes she told were for sexually well-adjusted adults who find nothing threatening to human sexuality within the realm of zoology and who understand the absurdity of respectable women, above reproach, attending a male strip event.
It is obvious that these attackers are using this benign event as an opportunity to demonize an administration they already despise.
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.