Well, I'm a Marine and I wouldn't mind taking a blow at Kid Rock. I mean the man hasn't come up with any original material in years and now he expects for people to respect him for wearing a flag in the form of a Mexican Sarape?
Just remember that your duty is really to the people of the country first, and to their freedoms. Symbolic value though it may have, and for all of the rhetoric about "fighting for the flag", the value of the flag itself should be way, way lower on your priorities.
A Marine, or any other military person, should be defender of freedom, not a thug enforcing political conformity.
<aside>No offence, but the American obsession with patriotism (symbolised by reverence of the national flag and glorification of the institution of the presidency and the military) looks oh so proto-Fascist from here. (And that's bad btw.)</aside>
As to the boob?*Giggle Hiccup*; I'm a-laughing at anyone who is scandalised.
As to the metal nipple-thingamy?What is a "patsy"?
As to the metal nipple-thingamy?What is a "patsy"?
i believe what you are referring to is a "pasty," a small piece of adhesive backed material meant fro strippers to wear over their nipple areas for places where "full nudity" is not allowed. why is that allowed? because most municipalities have a hard time defining nudity short of "exposed nipples". so if you can keep them covered somehow, you're not breaking the law. this is not universally kept, however.
lil' kim wore a pasty over her left breast, i think for the mtv music awards or something a few years ago, which was a surprise (and lil' kim's got an impressive pair of natural breasts). janet's was not a "pasty" though... it was nipple jewelry, plain and simple.
you know what would be good is if women everywhere said "why the hell should they be ashamed of showing a woman's breast?"
...lil' kim wore a pasty over her left breast, i think for the mtv music awards or something a few years ago, which was a surprise (and lil' kim's got an impressive pair of natural breasts)...
Kim has breast implants. Sorry to ruin it for you.
...you know what would be good is if women everywhere said "why the hell should they be ashamed of showing a woman's breast?"
While I don't care wether or not they're shown, the reason people make a stink about it is because in most cases, as in this one, the showing of the breast(s) is meant to be overtly sexual. If she'd just come out with a sheer shirt on that showed the breasts, or even no top at all, but didn't herself make a big deal about it, then less people would be up in arms. But the fact it is done in an intentional sexually provacative way is why it's still problematic in the US.
As for watching the Half Time show---Honestly, what did you expect? In real life, people who expose themselves to other people are arrested and prosecuted. Period---have your wife or girlfriend try that shit at the local Starbucks tomorrow morning and see where it gets her.
It's as simple as this:
If you play with turds you'll get shit on your hands. Kill your television. If you need titilation that bad, get a subscription to Hustler.
I didn't watch the halftime show--and had managed to miss actually viewing J.J.'s boob until I started going through this thread.
In fact, I don't watch TV and this is EXACTLY why. I don't need some punk MTV producers and lame performers to give me the finger (metaphorically speaking).
"Why get so insulted over a boob?"
Well, is it supposed to be entertaining? Sorry, I don't get off watching other people.
And few people want to see things like Janet's bare breast. Thus the cladestine manuevering. So why do it? It wasn't to entertain the audience, who didn't want to see her boob, but to shock the audience by insulting them. And the intent is felt--clearly.
So I can't boycott Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, MTV, or CBS because I don't watch/listen to any of them anyway. But now my reason is become clearer--and I'm even less likely to buy an antenna for my TV than I was before.
I find it interesting how insensitive so many "liberal" thinkers are. The attitude is like, "This is no big deal so STFU." How forward thinking and open minded they are.
"An outrageous message posted to a newsgroup or mailing list or message board to bait people to answer. Trolling is a form of harassment that can take over a discussion. Well meaning defenders can create chaos by responding to trolls. The best response is to ignore it. Also, the person who posts such messages."
"An annoyance usually on Messageboards who posts for the purpose of causing a disturbance. Often by making comments of a slanderous nature, accusatory, or just general pain-in-the-assness."
"Deliberately post an offensive or contentious message in a public message base, with the specific intent of provoking flames."
If she'd just come out with a sheer shirt on that showed the breasts, or even no top at all, but didn't herself make a big deal about it, then less people would be up in arms.
My friends were watching with their kid, and they had a bit more explaining to do from Viagra's discaimer "If erection does not subside within 4 hours, consult your doctor" than they did from "the old lady in the funny outfit showing her boobies".
I'll just end my posting with this, because some folks are still missing the larger point I'm trying to make.
There's a difference between literally advocating or organzing violence against a person because of something they did, and stating that said person is deserving of a knuckle sandwich, whether he gets it or not. There's also a difference between one citizen teaching another a lesson (as opposed to a mob of citizens, or one citizen with a weapon), and a police state where law enforcement officials teach the lessons.
Further, to make an analogy that because I think it would be OK if someone punched KR because of his actions, that it would be equally OK for a teacher to hit a child because of his actions... is way off the mark. Apples and Oranges. At the bare minimum, Kid Rock is an adult and a public figure and so is more aware of, and responsible for his actions than any child is ever going to be. Which person in this example can affect millions of people by their actions? Hmmm, lemme think....
As for being outraged over a nipple, as some seem to think is the issue here, you're all way off the mark on that too. No one is saying "OMG, nipples should *never* be shown on TV!" We're saying the whole thing was one big lame-ass stunt, and the people who purpotraited it can't even own up to it. THAT's what's so pathetic about not only this SuperBowl show, but others before it and other TV events with media darlings (i.e. Madonna and Co.). You're only seeing the tree and not the forrest IOW. The nipple isn't the issue, the way the media runs these productions (and rationalizes their content) is.
I do agree with whoever said "if you don't like it, don't buy their records." If i had the influence I would certainly support a boycott on any one of the performers who took part in that show... even the dance companies, should they perform in other venues. That goes for any "musician" or "actor" or other entertainer who's bread and butter is to simply appeal to the least and the lowest of any given social norm.
That's what these people do: they shoot for the LCD, because they know that's where the biggest money is. Teenagers love anything that's vulgar or elicit or whatever (because their parents don't like it and that's the natural progression to adulthood generally), and so they give them the "most outrageous" show they can, regarless of whether it holds any artistic, musical or even political merit.
Kid Rock is popular because he rips up flags and wears them, while singing about kicking someone's ass (how ironic) or f*cking some beyotch. P Diddy is popular because he makes huge cash and flaunts it on stage, on the Oprah show and everywhere else he goes (oh yah, and he can "F*ck hoes" with the best of em too). But it's not just pop starts. Ben Stiller and Adam Sandler are popular because they are really good at acting out bathroom jokes on film. The most popular PC games are so because they show scantily clad women and body parts being strewn all over the screen. All these people should be allowed to do every single thing they do, without being hindered in any legal sense. And they should also lose their shirts if the public at large had any brains at all, but alas, this is hoping for too much.
That's even more unrealistic than expecting pop stars or actors to demonstrate even a little bit of self-control. Insanity I say!
Comments
Originally posted by nx7oe
Well, I'm a Marine and I wouldn't mind taking a blow at Kid Rock. I mean the man hasn't come up with any original material in years and now he expects for people to respect him for wearing a flag in the form of a Mexican Sarape?
Just remember that your duty is really to the people of the country first, and to their freedoms. Symbolic value though it may have, and for all of the rhetoric about "fighting for the flag", the value of the flag itself should be way, way lower on your priorities.
A Marine, or any other military person, should be defender of freedom, not a thug enforcing political conformity.
As to the boob?*Giggle Hiccup*; I'm a-laughing at anyone who is scandalised.
As to the metal nipple-thingamy?What is a "patsy"?
Originally posted by Scott
Can I get a soap box count? I think I'm going to need a whole lot. I got a half dozen. Is that enough?
I'm tired, I'll pass. But do you know what a patsy is?
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
As to the metal nipple-thingamy?What is a "patsy"?
i believe what you are referring to is a "pasty," a small piece of adhesive backed material meant fro strippers to wear over their nipple areas for places where "full nudity" is not allowed. why is that allowed? because most municipalities have a hard time defining nudity short of "exposed nipples". so if you can keep them covered somehow, you're not breaking the law. this is not universally kept, however.
lil' kim wore a pasty over her left breast, i think for the mtv music awards or something a few years ago, which was a surprise (and lil' kim's got an impressive pair of natural breasts). janet's was not a "pasty" though... it was nipple jewelry, plain and simple.
you know what would be good is if women everywhere said "why the hell should they be ashamed of showing a woman's breast?"
Originally posted by rok
...lil' kim wore a pasty over her left breast, i think for the mtv music awards or something a few years ago, which was a surprise (and lil' kim's got an impressive pair of natural breasts)...
Kim has breast implants. Sorry to ruin it for you.
Originally posted by rok
...you know what would be good is if women everywhere said "why the hell should they be ashamed of showing a woman's breast?"
While I don't care wether or not they're shown, the reason people make a stink about it is because in most cases, as in this one, the showing of the breast(s) is meant to be overtly sexual. If she'd just come out with a sheer shirt on that showed the breasts, or even no top at all, but didn't herself make a big deal about it, then less people would be up in arms. But the fact it is done in an intentional sexually provacative way is why it's still problematic in the US.
It's as simple as this:
If you play with turds you'll get shit on your hands. Kill your television. If you need titilation that bad, get a subscription to Hustler.
In fact, I don't watch TV and this is EXACTLY why. I don't need some punk MTV producers and lame performers to give me the finger (metaphorically speaking).
"Why get so insulted over a boob?"
Well, is it supposed to be entertaining? Sorry, I don't get off watching other people.
And few people want to see things like Janet's bare breast. Thus the cladestine manuevering. So why do it? It wasn't to entertain the audience, who didn't want to see her boob, but to shock the audience by insulting them. And the intent is felt--clearly.
So I can't boycott Janet Jackson, Justin Timberlake, MTV, or CBS because I don't watch/listen to any of them anyway. But now my reason is become clearer--and I'm even less likely to buy an antenna for my TV than I was before.
Shot your TV before it's too late!
Originally posted by Fangorn
Shot your TV before it's too late!
How am I supposed to play Xbox without a TV?
"An annoyance usually on Messageboards who posts for the purpose of causing a disturbance. Often by making comments of a slanderous nature, accusatory, or just general pain-in-the-assness."
"Deliberately post an offensive or contentious message in a public message base, with the specific intent of provoking flames."
Originally posted by Quarem
How am I supposed to play Xbox without a TV?
With a projector.
Originally posted by rageous
If she'd just come out with a sheer shirt on that showed the breasts, or even no top at all, but didn't herself make a big deal about it, then less people would be up in arms.
There's a difference between literally advocating or organzing violence against a person because of something they did, and stating that said person is deserving of a knuckle sandwich, whether he gets it or not. There's also a difference between one citizen teaching another a lesson (as opposed to a mob of citizens, or one citizen with a weapon), and a police state where law enforcement officials teach the lessons.
Further, to make an analogy that because I think it would be OK if someone punched KR because of his actions, that it would be equally OK for a teacher to hit a child because of his actions... is way off the mark. Apples and Oranges. At the bare minimum, Kid Rock is an adult and a public figure and so is more aware of, and responsible for his actions than any child is ever going to be. Which person in this example can affect millions of people by their actions? Hmmm, lemme think....
As for being outraged over a nipple, as some seem to think is the issue here, you're all way off the mark on that too. No one is saying "OMG, nipples should *never* be shown on TV!" We're saying the whole thing was one big lame-ass stunt, and the people who purpotraited it can't even own up to it. THAT's what's so pathetic about not only this SuperBowl show, but others before it and other TV events with media darlings (i.e. Madonna and Co.). You're only seeing the tree and not the forrest IOW. The nipple isn't the issue, the way the media runs these productions (and rationalizes their content) is.
I do agree with whoever said "if you don't like it, don't buy their records." If i had the influence I would certainly support a boycott on any one of the performers who took part in that show... even the dance companies, should they perform in other venues. That goes for any "musician" or "actor" or other entertainer who's bread and butter is to simply appeal to the least and the lowest of any given social norm.
That's what these people do: they shoot for the LCD, because they know that's where the biggest money is. Teenagers love anything that's vulgar or elicit or whatever (because their parents don't like it and that's the natural progression to adulthood generally), and so they give them the "most outrageous" show they can, regarless of whether it holds any artistic, musical or even political merit.
Kid Rock is popular because he rips up flags and wears them, while singing about kicking someone's ass (how ironic) or f*cking some beyotch. P Diddy is popular because he makes huge cash and flaunts it on stage, on the Oprah show and everywhere else he goes (oh yah, and he can "F*ck hoes" with the best of em too). But it's not just pop starts. Ben Stiller and Adam Sandler are popular because they are really good at acting out bathroom jokes on film. The most popular PC games are so because they show scantily clad women and body parts being strewn all over the screen. All these people should be allowed to do every single thing they do, without being hindered in any legal sense. And they should also lose their shirts if the public at large had any brains at all, but alas, this is hoping for too much.
That's even more unrealistic than expecting pop stars or actors to demonstrate even a little bit of self-control. Insanity I say!
simply because he sucks, is terrible, has never ever had any talent, has an awful schtick and is just plain bad?
oh, and did I say that he is no good at what he 'does"?
oh, and also, that what he 'does' is no good?
not that he does no good badly . . . but rather that what he wants to do is bad and he also doesn't do it well . . . .
enough allready!! . . 8)