Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Presidential Hopeful ...  (Read 48200 times)

guy.de.gia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Chelsea Addressing the DNC
« Reply #350 on: February 05, 2012, 06:44:52 PM »





They also hinted broadly that daughter Chelsea Clinton would be speaking Tuesday evening.


I never get the point of politicians' children addressing crowds such as DNC's - I guess they do it to introduce their children to politics early on!

penda

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Presidential Hopeful ...
« Reply #351 on: February 06, 2012, 03:04:15 PM »





They also hinted broadly that daughter Chelsea Clinton would be speaking Tuesday evening.


I never get the point of politicians' children addressing crowds such as DNC's - I guess they do it to introduce their children to politics early on!


A curious fact about Chelsea during the White House years of Bill Clinton was that the matter of Chelsea's privacy was debated in the press, and most media outlets concluded that she should be off-limits due to her age. But when Clinton was 13 her appearance became a matter of ridicule for some satirists and commentators, including comments by Rush Limbaugh and the comedy writers of Saturday Night Live.

In 1995, freelance writer Tom Gogola released a tape of songs purportedly recorded by Clinton which commented upon notable people and included lyrics like "let's inhale"; the tape proved to be a hoax. Gogola defended the tape, saying "None of it had to do with being mean to Chelsea. Satire is satire."

sed cena

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: 'Tanned' Obama comment causes stir
« Reply #352 on: February 07, 2012, 04:16:12 PM »

The first racist comments arrive from Italy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErsgFMFhoPQ


Berlusconi was indeed a rude, foul-mouthed statesman - I hope he's not coming back anymore!

Country Day

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Presidential Hopeful ...
« Reply #353 on: February 10, 2012, 06:06:35 PM »

[...] Therefore, one of the best "closet" situation available included their participation in the destruction of their own kind; it is now strongly suspected that Senator Joseph McCarthy who headed the American homosexual witch-hunts in the early 1950s was also homosexual. His prosecuting attorney, Roy Cohn, was definitely gay. At the time few people knew that the hunters of "dangerous", "evil," and "morally weak" homosexuals were themselves homosexual. If, however, anyone fitted negative homosexual stereotypes, it was these self-hating homo-hunters considered to be "morally righteous" because they were reflecting our society's traditional morality; this was the type of morality also used to make the desired destruction of all Native cultures appear to be righteous. We hated homosexuals and behaved accordingly, and Roy Cohn continued his abuses of homosexual people up to his death from AIDS in 1986. He had become very powerful, was very promiscuous, needed to have sex with a male at least once a day, and he could afford to have 4-5 young male prostitutes on his payroll so that his sexual needs would be met. He was strongly opposed to equal rights for gays, and was totally against the idea of having openly gay teachers in public schools.

[...] The phenomena is also similar to a "split personality" situation. One of the personalities is "the grand inquisitor," as McCarthy and Cohn had become in a spectacular way, and it needs to punish the homosexual part of their 'personality'. This internal war is also projected outward causing these socially created monsters to harm other gay males by ruining their careers or, as other males will do, punishing them may include physical assaults and even murder.

A fascinating aspect of the war waged against gays in our society is the observation that it is often being waged by repressed homosexuals who may not be homosexually active, or repressed closeted homosexuals who are having sex with males and hate themselves. The targets may be other closeted homosexuals, but the victims are more often visible "out of the closet" gay males. [...]


Well, these days things have changed a bit, taking into account the widespread acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle. Of course, there are still a h e l l of a lot of closeted gays - who are not out (at least as of yet). Outing is the deliberate/accidental disclosure of a gay person's sexual orientation, without his/her consent. One can out himself, of course, if he chooses to do so.

The term "glass closet" refers to the fact that even though they have not 'officially' come out, everyone knows they're gay, but acts as if they are not (just like the gay person himself does) -  one's being gay is in this case, kind of an "open secret" (usually the case with public figures). Tom Cruise is such an example. Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O'Donnell were like that, before they finally came out.

Finally, last year Obama repealed the federal policy "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Until very lately, therefore, all gays in the military were required to have their sexual orientation sort of an "open secret" (they could be fully in the closet one more time when they're discharged and home to marry their high-school sweethearts) - but, as I said, should they have come out, they're out of the army/navy/whatever.

So, there you have it - the degrees of the closet - or "outness" - if you like. It is controversial whether outing a gay person is beneficial to the society and/or that person himself. Personally I think it does not make sense to out plain folk people, while it does to out public figures/people in authority.

Usually, the outed gay individual would go after a journalist and his newspaper who outed him. But even such lawsuits have proved unsuccessful in the long run. Here it is the Cruise's case with South Park:


We've been sidetracked a bit by the last few posts in here - guydegia, could you elaborate a bit on this issue - I dying to know a little bit on this closet thing, the "degrees of outness," as you masterfully put it ..

pick

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Presidential Hopeful ...
« Reply #354 on: February 15, 2012, 05:25:48 PM »

4) The town's obsession with the Buckeyes would get very annoying, real quick. Case in point, I saw a huge billboard supporting their athletic director. After all the scandals they've had that seemed odd to me that the university would publicly support him, and even stranger that they would rent out a billboard to make this point so brazenly, as if they needed to convince themselves and run a PR campaign on the whole town so that everyone's reality doesn't crumble.


That's nothing! Have you not noticed public (state-funded) universities serving as mouthpieces for private companies, putting up their ads on their buildings?! Such universities and colleges are not by tradition or designation open for public communication, but are used for business/education/other devoted purposes.

The State reserves such non-public property for its intended purpose; they are considered non-public forums and include courthouses, jails, government offices, city halls and public schools. While State property that is a non-public forum is required to be open for its devoted purposes, it is not required to be open to the public for other expressive purposes.

Remember that we're not talking here about a walkway from public street or sidewalk leading up to University building -- some open public forum sidewalk not so delineated as to put speaker on notice that s/he has entered some special enclave where speech is not protected -- a case that would be a "grey area" in this field of law -- we're talking the actual buildings of such universities.


Which does not make sense, by extension, because it would be like the government exercising its First Amendment rights - which do not exist, since only individuals (later on corporations included) have such rights. It's like the arbiter of a football game assuming the role of a player.

Flatbush

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Presidential Hopeful ...
« Reply #355 on: February 27, 2012, 04:28:59 PM »

Natalia is so funny throughout the entire movie - here it is another one:

Sally: I saw a film the other day about syphilis. Ugh! It was too awful. I couldn't let a man touch me for a week. Is it true you can get it from kissing?
Fritz: Oh, yes. And your king, Henry VIII, got it from Cardinal Wolsey whispering in his ear.
Natalia: That is not, I believe, founded in fact. But from kissing, most decidedly; and from towels, and from cups.
Sally: And of course screwing.
Natalia: Screw-ing, please?
Sally: Oh, uh...
[thinking]
Sally: fornication.
Natalia: For-ni-ca-tion?
Sally: Oh, uh, Bri, darling, what is the German word?
Brian Roberts: I don't remember.
Sally: [thinking] Oh... um... oh yes!
Brian Roberts: Oh, no...
Sally: Bumsen!
Natalia: [appalled] Oh.
Brian Roberts: That would be the one German word you pronounce perfectly.
Sally: Well, I ought to. I spent the entire afternoon bumsening like mad with this ghastly old producer who promised to get me a contract.
[pause]
Sally: Gin, Miss Landauer?

God Bless Sally!


I find it a bit unusual that major producers would go to a place like KitKat (but apparently they did), so that Sally could hope to get a big movie contract just like that, by means of just a @ # ! * - or "bumsening" as she calls it - I guess, it's more like "wishful thinking" on her part! Maybe just one more sex act for her?!