| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2019/09/20/free-n ipple-activists-force-city-council-erase-topless-b an/ I support free... "Where are my rights being defended in this discussion?” said resident Paul Vencel. “Don’t I have the right to go down the street without seeing such things? … If the current language is struck, anybody can do whatever they want, wherever they want, and they can force everybody to watch" No. You don't have the right to not see such things. Such things as black people, heads without a hat, or religious symbols worn by others. I know your religion might require hats in public, or tell you to not tolerate a cross or a Star of David. Too bad. Either don't look, or enjoy life in all it's weirdness. Colonialist, racist boobaphobe!  | ||
| Crusty |
I think I'll visit Ft. Collins the next time I'm in Colorado | ||
| Mnscrounger |
"However, the Free the Nipple Fort Collins website stated that “We reject that ‘family values’ are preserved through sexist discrimination, queer-erasure, victim blaming and the targeting of minors.”" Speaking of minors if this ordinance suspension goes, how does that new policy apply to minor females? I'm no boobaphobe, but I do have a daughter, (though now an adult, that does not change my view of protection for underage girls). How does this Ft. Collins policy square with the child pornography laws on federal, (and probably Colorado's) books? If viewing of a minor is illegal, in media or in person, could an individual be subject to prosecution if they were within view, regardless of whether or not they were looking? Just a hypothetical legal question for the smarter people here. | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm not even hypocritically a lawyer, and my take would be that if the upper torso of a human being is not an offensive sight... ( and some are! ) Hmm... no right to not be offended... How about, if the upper torso is not obscene, then the secondary sexual characteristics of a human female are not illegal to display or view? It'a not genitals, which most cultures have taboos on showing, that are probably based on the simple fact that you don't want to get sand, mud, etc. in or on them, for comfort, if nothing else. After all, jungle tribes "undiscovered" or had lost touch sometimes have a limited nudity taboo if any, but men wear a leaf wrapped around their outer bits and women over their inner bits. No one seems to care about breasts. I'd bet there are still aesthetic preferences for certain body shapes, even among "lost Tribes of the Jungle", but I don't know what they are. Past cultures have shown preference for body shapes that lend themselves to surviving a brief famine, and current American trends seem to be close to ancient Greek & Roman "hard bodies" of classical sculpture. ( how much six packs in Grecian sculpture is showing off technique and how much is what folk liked, I dunno ) Cultures in the past varied a lot in if a woman's breasts were to be hidden, displayed, or ignored in polite conversation, unless obviously enhanced to attract attention. However.... Yeah, the daughter aspect. Setting aside, with some effort, the Dad's protectiveness, because you can't stop others from looking at your daughter, and realizing you can't control their clothing choices as soon as they catch on that they can cram an entire club outfit in a purse. ( looks like a wide belt and a bandana... ) Of course you don't want lecherous old/young men/women/other to be gazing at "always your little" girl's body. Good luck getting over that. I haven't. | ||
| Zac4mac |
They call it "Ft. Fun" out here... | ||
| Mnscrounger |
Aesquire: I recognize my personal protectionist views that no man may view my daughter "that way", are an illogical emotional reaction to my early role as a father. Consenting adults can view and (display) what they want to each other. Its hypocritical of me to admire the appearance of women, and not recognize my daughter is one of the women other men might admire. It's hypocritical, and illogical, but I don't care. Getting back to my hypothetical question, breasts may not be genitals, but is a display of female breasts titillation? (gigantic pun) At least in America the cultural taboo itself makes it so. The countless neon signs outside bars and spring break behavior are exhibits A and B. ( Disclaimer: I endorse such behavior among consenting adults in most circumstances) Going further than my original question of can an individual be prosecuted merely being in the presence of a topless minor female, under child protection laws could the parents knowingly allowing their daughter to go about in such manner be prosecuted for exploitation of a minor? "In olden days, a glimpse of stocking Was looked on as something shocking. But now, God knows, Anything goes." Cole Porter - "Anything Goes" (Message edited by mnscrounger on September 21, 2019) | ||
| Aesquire |
Again, not a lawyer. But sure, you can be arrested and prosecuted for what you said & worse, even though the behavior, not wearing a shirt, may be legal in that location. It depends on the District Attorney and the Sheriff/Chief & the orders they give the deputies/police. Can you get out of that trouble by crying unfair? Depends on judge and lawyers, maybe even a Grand Jury or jury. Don't feel bad about hypocrisy or inconsistent attitude. It's a Dad thing. I have the same issues. As to breasts being taboo? Not my fault. New York ruled years ago topless in public parks was legal. Haven't seen it. But I don't hang out at a beach or other parks much. Never heard about it after the protest & court ruling. There are other controversial insanities in progress on sex and public law that I don't like it have serious mixed feelings about. Not wearing a shirt isn't a big problem for me. But I support the local businesses in saying "no shirt, no shoes, no service" as that's a public health issue. And liability for the business. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/can dace-owens-scorches-the-dems.php Ultimately my opinion of myself as a Patriotic American is necessarily biased. But I have no doubt Candace Owens is. | ||
| Ratbuell |
DAMN I love Candace. What a speech. Although, Jim Jordan's ••••••••••• grin at the end...NEARLY as satisfying as Candace's speech. THAT needs to go on the MSM. (I know...I can dream...) | ||
| Aesquire |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/dep lorables.php | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/exp laining-jeremy-corbyn.php British politics is a mystery to most Americans. Blame the evil men who run our schools. The methods that they use to "form a government" are weird to us. Because our Founding Fathers chose deliberately not to copy them. They saw the built in corruption and a system that evolved to keep the power in the hands of the elite. But even though the details are different, the names different, the ideologies of the players have common ground across oceans. The Big Parties absorb the smaller ones and change as they do. A study of the Labour Party might be informative to Americans. Like our Donkey Party ( animal who labors, natch ) the Communist Party couldn't win, so infiltrated and conquered from within. The result is an utterly intolerant to other thinking group. One that habitually uses ad hominem attacks instead of logic, since they are wrong. About most things. They seek to disarm their populations, and once the guns are confiscated, kitchen knives are next, screwdrivers to follow. Crime, violence, and murder increase where they are in power. I could go on & on. Labour isn't the same as Democrats. But they share the same contempt for voters, their country, and the people they exploit. The Tories aren't the same as Republicans. But they share internal turmoil as the voters tired of them being passive, ineffectual, establishment, "Don't rock the boat, we got a sweet deal if nothing ever changes!" Jerks. And both are imploding as an outsider was voted in by angry citizens sick of the results. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/the-long-civi l-war | ||
| Gregtonn |
re: Candace Owens She will be eligible to be President by the time the next presidential term has ended. Imagine the youngest ever President is a black female Conservative. That should scare the hell out of a lot of liberals. G | ||
| Ratbuell |
She's got my vote. And NOT because she's black, or she's a female. I'd vote for her because she's BRILLIANT, and she calls it like it is. And, I believe she truly has our great nation's best interests at heart. I'd want to see some more policy ideas from her I think - she gets the whole social aspect, and she's definitely a conservative, and she's all for free speech and anti-bias, but there's more to it than that. I *think* she'd do well...but I already like her more than any of the potential alternatives. If P45 is smart, he'll bring her "inside" during his second term, make her a presence that everyone in the nation can see and get familiar with...and then she'll have more of a base to launch a '24 campaign. AND, she's smart - she'll be able to do great things for our President (and our nation) during his second term. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/w hy_breasts_matter.html Candace for Veep? I'd go for that. I loved her comments on the Democrats having 3 white people at her table of 4 witnesses lecturing her on the problems of being Black. Race as a weapon. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/t he_crisis_obama_let_go_to_waste.html | ||
| Aesquire |
https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/september-octob er-2019/trump-meltdowns-hide-obamas-poisoned-chali ce/ | ||
| Aesquire |
I'd have posted the above on the Old Obama thread, but even his own Party is trying b to forget him. The card carrying Communist isn't left enough now. I was once told the left/right political spectrum is the wrong mental image. You should view it as a spiral, or mobius strip. Go far enough to the "ends" and you find it hard to tell them apart from folk at the "opposite end", even though they violently dislike each other. That seems to be the case. The few dozen "right of John Birchers" radicals in the country are, if you squint, hard to tell from the thousands of radical Leftists. That's where you find deep racism, antisemitism, authoritarian, fools. 17 odd years ago I posted a rant that the fundamentalist Islamofascists messed up by physically attacking America, when they should have been subverting the fundamentalist Christian churches by supporting traditional sex roles, chastity, charity, and modesty. It would have been dishonest and cynical of them, which is according to the teachings of The Prophet. And more successful at winning hearts & minds. Politically smart to seduce the Conservatives, as the Progressives will embrace anything to grow in power. But like the current crop of Democrat candidates, hate and authoritarian greed took them on a path that earned them utter contemptuous opposition. | ||
| Sifo |
Still trying to figure out how this isn't huge news from every news agency. Actually, It Was Joe Biden Who Bribed the Ukrainians to Fire a Prosecutor Looking Into His Son In a nutshell... There's video of Biden bragging about using a billion dollars of US cash to bribe the Ukraine to stop an investigation into illegalities done by a corporation where Biden's son sat on the board of directors. Sorry if I got any of the details wrong, but I think I have the summary pretty damned close. I just heard about, and heard the video today, and it's really quite shocking. It's a bit like when Blagojevich bragged on tape about having something of great value (Obama's vacated Senate seat). Honestly, if this doesn't got to prosecution, there should be armed revolution. | ||
| Ratbuell |
I'll tell you how. He's a Democrat. That's all it takes. Free pass. It's disgusting. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/a_qua lified_defense_of_nationbuilding.html I'm not certain this strategy will work, but it's far better than current policy and worth a try. I admit it appeals to the Jacksonian in me. | ||
| Ducbsa |
I don't know if I agree with 7b. | ||
| Aesquire |
That might be my favorite part. But unlike Leftists, I could be wrong. Is it that you think it wrong to blame the leaders for the actions of their people? That it's impossible for them to prevent crimes by their subjects, therefore targeting them, personally, is morally wrong? That's a good argument. I might counter that by pointing out that inflammatory speeches and chants of "Death to America" show culpability, but that might not be good enough to pass a Jesuit review on the morality. Or is it that targeting leaders instead of the country as a group, like with sanctions or traditional war, invites the assassination of our own leaders? That's also a good argument. It's only been possible to selectively target leadership very recently. ( if it is indeed possible today ) So there is not a lot of precedent to say you're wrong. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Assassins Outside of video games, the surgical strike strategy hasn't been used where the attacking leaders were not isolated and safe from reprisal, so that argument is untested, but logical. Or is it the lack of concern for collateral damage? That's a very moral argument. I would contend that the collateral damage is far less than sanctions have shown to produce, much less traditional war & conquest. But. I can also argue that the world would have been better if we'd nuked Moscow in 1945, so just using raw numbers, a million dead vs. Hundreds of millions, is morally problematic. And your reason is? | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/a dvice_for_our_vietnamese_friends_on_china_.html | ||
| Aesquire |
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/27/pope -francis-endorses-essay-trashing-u-s-conservative- christians/ Gee, I wonder how the Pope would condemn me? How do I get excommunicated? I'd consider it an honor for this Pope to do so. | ||
| Sifo |
Very "Christian" of him. The left OTOH, is becoming very anti-religion, and supports abortion at any time, for any reason. I wonder how he squares that? Such as it is when politics gets into your religion. I thought the Catholic Church had done a fairly reasonable job of getting away from that sort of thing for quite a long time. Looks like the pendulum is swinging though. | ||
| Torquehd |
Of course the Catholic cult doesn't think Christians are Christian's. It's all throughout their history. The only way to God is through the Catholic church (said no bible ever). Any other way to God threatens the very fiber of Catholicism. John spoke well, "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service" You're dealing with a government mandated religion whose assigned role in life was to kill millions of Christian's. Catholics arent bad, but Catholicism is a dark place. I'm sure I've offended someone. | ||
| Aesquire |
Perhaps, but that was The Old Church. This Pope's Church is Liberation Theology, a Soviet created perversion of Christianity. | ||
| Aesquire |
https://newcriterion.com/issues/2019/10/leninthink | ||
| Pwnzor |
The Pope is the Antichrist. |
