I'm sorry, but we watch an awful lot of old movies and listen to old radio shows and I'm just not seeing it.
Just because it was implicit, not explicit, doesn't mean it isn't there. And I'm not just talking about movies - society, from the dawn of time, has been about sex. Sex has pervaded all aspects of society. We are just a more honest and open about it now than were were over the last couple of centuries. Before that, in earlier times, we were honest and open about it too.
No.
The definitions don't change. People just decide whether or not they want to show respect to those around them.
This is frankly ridiculous. You can't say that there is no difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour today - the definitions have changed, but there is still a distinction. The definitions are ALWAYS changing - what was allowed 50 years ago, 100 years ago, was different to what was before it. Change isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Serious?
For millenia it was been acceptable to treat a wife as property, to use physical violence against her when she disobeyed, to force her to have sex with you ("it can't be rape in marriage")... as for acceptable to lynch blacks - please, just read up on your early American history, look at hte te treatment of minorities, be they native Americans or slaves - again, these people were treated like animals, like property, and considered to have the same rights.
Definitions of what is acceptable change, deal with it. A lot of the time it is a marked improvement.
Then you're one of the only ones. When I go to a restaurant anymore, it looks like Skid Row.
You said earlier that you dress up to go out. Are you saying that it's appropriate to dress differently for different places or occasions?
I dress up to go out because it is a fun thing to do. I don't see why God would care about the clothes I wear - I was under the impression he wasn't so keen on materialism and what was on the surface - it is what is inside that counts.
I'm wracking my brain to think of some. Even on the Phillies, who are generally considered a "squeaky clean" team, I can only think of two.
You have just demonstrated the problem - the problem is not that there aren't role models out there, the problem is that you are looking for them in a baseball team.
The only comedian I can think of who is clean is Brian Regan and the only time he's ever heard is when they play clips of him on Wretched. As for musicians, yes, there are some good musicians out there, but it usually takes hours of wading through Youtube videos to find them. They're certainly not going to be heard on the radio or TV.
Again, if you are having problems finding good quality musicians and comedians to your taste, it is because you aren't looking in the right places.
Because they're men.
Because they're women. Why do you believe it's such a bad thing for women to be ladies?
Why do our reproductive organs have to define how we act?
Women can be ladies, if they chose so - thats a fine choice. They can also chose to not meet your definition of "ladylike" behaviour. That is also a fine choice.
Freedom is a wonderful thing. It allows us all to make choices that will make us happy. It is a definite improvement on being stuck in rather arbitrary paths that made many people unhappy.
Being different is not always a good thing.
It isn't necessarily a good thing, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing either. We are all different, we are all individuals, we ought to be able to live our lives in a way that matches our particular differences, to a limit where we start impacting on the freedom of others to do the same.
You mean other than Congress and the president? Yes, judging by the number of people who have called me a racist because I favor small government and spending cuts, and all of the heat that people are receiving now for believing the same thing, there are quite a few people who don't believe it.
Your problem here is that you think your position is the only reasonable position. Newsflash - it isn't. By other peoples definitions, the current spending is reasonable (ie. it is reasonable to use government stimulus in a time of downturn to minimise the damage, and then repay back the money when times are good, it is reasonable to spend money so that basic needs like health care are met, etc.).
That people have called you racist for your views is unfortunate. There is much to much attacking of people going on these days in politics. People ought to be more civil, and they ought to recognise that there are many different ways to view a problem, and that other views are not necessarily any less reasonable than yours.
What I eat, what I wear, my education, what I drive, how I protect myself, my healthcare...
Could you specify exactly how the government is regulating any of these areas beyond any reasonable amount?
Actually, the Democrat's recession wasn't caused by no regulation, it was caused by over-regulation and by Congress mandating that banks give loans to people they knew couldn't pay the loans back.
That is an element of truth that, but also an element of untruth. Yes, the government mandated the banks to give loans in certain cases that they otherwise might not have. In that sense, regulation played a role. On the other hand, the completely unregulated financials system which bundled these loans into derivatives of derivatives of derivatives, gave them incredibly inflated credit ratings, and basically created billions and billions of dollars of bad assets which they called good... that was what really caused the problems. Banks could have made loans that the government told them to without constructing the house of cards which they were able to through complete lack of regulation of some areas of the finance industry
No. Frankly, I'm quite ashamed of him and all those who voted for him. He does not have America's best interests at heart, he has repeatedly violated his oath to uphold the Constitution, he is destroying this country through his bizzare fiscal policies, through his takeover of our healthcare system, through his association with anti-American radicals, etc, he has alienated our enemies, stabbed Israel in the back, lied about everything under the sun, shows contempt for anyone who doesn't agree with him...
I think that last sentence is clear projection. I think Obama comes across as a very humble person, with a vision about America which he sincerely beleives in.
You disagree. You are free to disagree. I think he has worked as hard as he could with Republicans to pass things, but they have no interest in working with him. In the end, he will have to simply do things without them.
You exagerate the extent of his policies - the current health care policy was the Republican's health care policy in the mid 1990s. His fiscal policies are those used by basically all government around the world in response to the financial crisis, and they are a continuation of Bush's policies in that respect. If he hadn't implemented them we can speculate about how many banks would still exist in your country, how many jobs would have been lost as companies big and small were brought down as their banks and insurance companies simply went insolvent?
There will always be differences of opinion on these kind of policies, but the fact someone disagrees with you is not, in my opinion, a justification for you to start personally attacking them, as you just did. You had a problem when other people personally attacked you for disagreeing with them, why would you do the same?
Yes. I know it's a radical idea among liberals, but children should be respectful of adults.
Why? Do all adults deserve respect? Is a sir or a ma'am really respect?
Then you haven't been watching. The only people who have even hinted that what he is doing is wrong are the late night comedians. In fact, when Britt Hume suggested that what Tiger Woods did was wrong, he was treated as if that was worse than what Woods did. No, the big story concerning Tiger Woods has been how it will affect golf and whether or not he'll be able to come back. Just this morning, there was a news story about the PGA coming to a local course and how excited everyone is that Tiger Woods is coming and how good his presence will be for the area.
I guess coverage in Australia has been different, then - the coverage that I saw about him was pretty negative the whole way through and cast him in a poor light.
That's the whole point. Tiger Woods is a dispicable person and you've heard all about him. Phil Mickleson does something truly heroic that we should all be very proud of, and nobody says anything about it.
I've heard about him because:
a) he was a great golfer, possibly the best of all time
b) the media here has been covering his major fall from grace.
I've heard of Phil Mickleson because:
a) he is a very good golfer
I'm not interested in golf, so I don't think I could name any more golfers.
The point is, I don't hear of Tiger Woods in glowing terms at all. It is a scandal, we have always been interested in gossip and scandal, no change from the past there. He isn't being raised on a pedestal because of the scandal - the story is actually about his fall.
Surely the Tiger Woods case is an example for all of the consequences of infidelity?
