Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 7 months ago
    the "outlawed" language heard on the streets of Brighton is perfectly legal on television programs.
    I always wonder who started to use the word "schmuck" on television because it is a Yiddish word that literally translates to a mans private parts. Maybe it was Mel Brooks. You have to watch out for those who administer the laws not the law makers. And it is the police officer who does not use any common sense. What if the police officer uses those same words who tickets him? Stupidity abounds in the usa today.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      Depends on the time of day. What's permissible after 9pm eastern (8 central and mountain - never understood why the kiddies in the Midwest were able to handle that language, but those on the coasts couldn't - guess we're just more mature, probably comes from watching all those farm animals procreate ;-)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 10 years, 7 months ago
        We said things like "That's cock!" instead of "That's swell!" can you get arrested for that?
        my kids grew up hearing "that's so gay!" I'm pretty sure you can get expelled for that
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by XenokRoy 10 years, 7 months ago
          Hay,

          I own a small farm and when you get a cow that jumps over fences you learn to cuss. I mean the cops better not be around when I hall cattle.

          Most the time I do not swear much, but when chasing down some steer that wanted to go over to the neighbors place I tend to cuss.

          ADD moment: Well the last one just got shot in the head, bleed out and taken to the butcher. I needed some more beef and his actions volunteered him to fill my freezer up a couple of months sooner than planned.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
            You have cows that can jump fences? That's a trick. Never seen a cow that could jump a fence - plenty stupid enough to walk right through an electric fence.

            And yes, any steer dumb enough to try to visit the neighbor would be self selecting to be the guest of honor at my next BBQ.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 7 months ago
    I used to work in a store just outside of Brighton way back in the 60s. They used to talk that way then. Some things never change. Come to think of it, they talk that way in adjoining communities like Pontiac, Walled Lake, Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, Southfield, etc.etc. That's the way people talk, you stupid @#$$#@!!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      You missed Commerce - only place I know that has two different intersections where Commerce & Commerce intersect (yes, not one, but 2!). I used to live there for two years. But I don't remember that sort of language - granted it was '03-'05, so might have changed some.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 7 months ago
        You have awakened my memory. As a youth, I submitted a few writings to various magazines under the name of Byron Sterling. The was a street sign of two intersecting streets just off of grand Boulevard in Detroit.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          Hope they were pleasant memories. :-)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 7 months ago
            Does anyone have pleasant memories of being a teen?
            Well, I guess some do. But that opens up a new can of worms. Thanks for the good wishes, anyhow.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
              For the most part, I do. Spent a lot of summers on my grandparent's dairy farm. Had 2 uncles who were only 18 and 36 months older, so more like brothers. Had a lot of good times along with hard work. Helped instill good values. Wish it weren't a bygone era for us, but that's the price of progress.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 10 years, 7 months ago
    Robbie I never heard the reference to jewels and now I have a friend researching for me. you probably know that "putz" is also the same only a different condition.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      From Wikipedia, so take it as you will -

      Etymology:

      The German word Schmuck means "jewelry, adornments";[7] In German the pejorative "schmuck" would be Schmock, closer to the original Yiddish word. The transition of the word from meaning "jewel" to meaning "penis" is related to the description of a man's genitals as "the family jewels
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      Yeah, I try to stay away from Putz's. That is the more specific term of the ones described.

      Had a Jewish roommate for a semester. He taught me the meaning for all those words his mommy wouldn't let him say around their house.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rayvaughn 10 years, 7 months ago
    Who said this:
    Is there any casualty other than your feelings? Are you or others being threatened with violence or vandalism? No? Then it's a shame your feelings are hurt but that's too bad. You'll live.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rayvaughn 10 years, 7 months ago
    Who said this?
    I there any casualty other than your feelings?
    Are you or others being threatened with violence or vandalism? No? Then it's a shame your feelings are hurt but that's too bad. You'll live.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 10 years, 7 months ago
    I had parents. I don't need government to "wash my mouth out with soap" when I'm speaking in public.
    This is a VERY slippery slope that will lead to silencing the populace because of fear of retribution for possible "offensive speech". Cue: "Sounds of Silence".
    In Atlas Shrugged, people eventually stopped talking. We are on our way there.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
      But don't you understand? Those politicians DID SOMETHING. Never mind that it will totally be ignored and have no effect whatsoever.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by teri-amborn 10 years, 7 months ago
        It seems to me that someone was fined for speech. I don't know how your bank balance looks but $200 is not a small sum for me. If police are empowered to punish for speech deemed offensive, people will eventually go silent. Another example of police brutality in my opinion and it needs to be stopped.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
          You have your legality wrong. No right goes unfettered. The right to free speech does not cover vulgar or indecent speech, nor does it cover speech that harms or inflames (like the proverbial yelling of "fire" in a movie theatre). Such speech is not protected, as SCOTUS has held in numerous opinions.

          Is it ridiculous? Perhaps. Legal? Absolutely.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
            You are wrong - vulgar and indecent speech is protected all the time. In fact, that's one of the reasons for the 1st Amendment - to protect speech that the majority find offensive. Heck, just recently the SCOTUS let stand a lower court ruling that a PA school district didn't have the authority to ban "I heart boobies" bracelets, which the school district tried to argue was vulgar.

            Yelling "Fire" in a crowded movie theater is different in that it causes panic and resultant injury. You can yell "Fire" all you want in the middle of a grassy park. It all depends on context.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
              I'd suggest you review the Supreme Court precedent for such, as your views are directly contradicted in Roth v. United States. A later decision in Miller v. California upheld Roth and said that indecent or vulgar expression was not granted unlimited expression and could very well be limited by local ordinances or statutes. The Miller test is now the common standard as far as I can discern, but it relies heavily on community standards for obscenity or vulgarity as the test. The case you mention was probably declined because the Supreme Court usually doesn't attempt to interpret community standards.

              I would also point out that the FCC has the ability to fine broadcasters for indecent shows or vulgarity - even though they rarely choose to do so outside of a major spectacle like the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake fiasco.

              Furthermore, both libel and slander are also examples of legal restrictions on free speech, are they not? As is the rule against inflammatory speech that could result in immediate harm or injury to the public.

              No right is without limits and every right entails responsible use. Again, in this case was it a bit overzealous? Probably. Legal? Completely.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                What you state are exceptions due to some other extenuating circumstances - the FCC licenses the airwaves (whether that is right or not I'm not going to debate) and as such sets "standards" for those who want to use those airwaves - however, those that send their transmissions via cable are not so encumbered.

                Libel and slander are also less restrictive depending on to whom the comments are addressed - if you are a "public" figure the standard of harm is significantly higher to prove slander/liable.

                I don't think that we are in disagreement, other than rights are just that - rights. They may have limitations, but those should be limited and as permissive as practicable.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
                  Your statements like "vulgar and indecent speech is protected all the time" made it appear as if you were arguing that unfettered freedom of expression (including vulgarity and obscenity) was a Constitutional right, when that is not the case. I appreciate your clarification.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
                    Nope. Just responding to your statement that seemed to indicate that it was always restricted. It is more unrestricted than not (or at least was. With the current Dept of Justice and SCOTUS it's hard to know anymore).
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by teri-amborn 10 years, 7 months ago
            Legality needs to align with reality and morality, true...but have you ever worked for the government? Once they set a precedent, reality changes form.
            For instance, to say "this is what I think, this is what I feel" can be made illegal and fined IF it is something that a law has been passed to prohibit.
            Again, this is a VERY slippery slope and I fear for our future if this trend continues.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
    You have it backwards.

    They're doing it right; making a behavior illegal and punishing its violation, retaining the individual's right to choose.

    changing the acceptability of a behavior has another name.... brainwashing.

    I'd rather face a firing squad for saying something illegal than be brainwashed into not saying the very same thing while preserving its legality to say.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 7 months ago
      So you would rather live in a totalitarian dictatorship than a free society?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
        How free is a society that brainwashes me into thinking the way the majority of emotion-driven morons thinks?

        An honest society outlaws tobacco. A dishonest society engages in a half-century campaign of brainwashing to demonize tobacco so that people not only reject tobacco, but those who choose to indulge (all the while brainwashing them into embracing the scum who indulge in real mind-altering substances).

        I'd rather live in an honest society. Then, if the majority of people truly do believe that smoking tobacco is harmful, it's an honest decision arrived at rationally.

        I hope you're not surprised; you know I've opposed crime prevention all along. Wait til I violate the law, then prosecute me, don't pass laws preventing me from potentially violate the law (such as texting-while-driving laws, which are designed to prevent me from being distracted from driving, not designed to punish me for having an accident).

        At least in a totalitarian dictatorship I can spit in the eye of my persecutors before they execute me without having to live in a delusional world, pretending to be one of the pod people (who would never execute me, far preferring using more... extreme... measures to get me to conform with their idiocy than honestly executing me).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 10 years, 7 months ago
          Well, I'd rather live in a society that leaves me the hell alone and lets me decide for myself.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -2
            Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
            So would I, but that wasn't an option. If I'm going to be screwed with, I'd prefer it up front and honest.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 7 months ago
              You'd prefer to be screwed with in a lethal manner that strips you of both your liberty and right to life, rather than in a manner which leaves you free to decide for yourself? Is honestly seriously more valuable than freedom?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
                IT DOESN'T LEAVE ME FREE TO DECIDE FOR MYSELF.

                That's the fallacy of your argument.

                Merriam-Webster online :
                " a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas
                2
                : persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship "

                Nowhere in the definition does it say "by use of reason". If I have to embrace homosexuality because otherwise my society persecutes me, or if I embrace homosexuality because every piece of literature, television, movies, etc set up scenarios in which those who embrace homosexuality are nice, successful, wise, "cool" people, and in the same scenarios those who reject it are cruel, failures, stupid, and "square"... well at 52 (today) I'm not going to be brainwashed. But at the impressionable ages from say 12-26, the emotional effects of these propaganda... FALSE propaganda... pieces does brainwash them into a favorable position regarding homosexuality.

                And this is just one example.

                I remember when I was a little kid. Maybe 10? A cartoon came on TV called "The Last of the Curlews". At the end of the story, as the last Curlew was shot by an evil mindless horrible icky pooey human, I burst into tears and bawled my eyes out.

                It took my wise father to sit down with me once my sobbing let up and explain to me what a propaganda piece that was. To explain how the real world worked, and the mechanics of extinction. What if I didn't have that wise father? What if my society, through other brainwashing techniques, made fathers' role in the family seem superfluous, to the point that single mother homes almost became the norm? Oh, gee... kinda like society today. I wouldn't have had anyone resistant to the propaganda to explain it to me in a rational *reasoned* manner.

                Another example maybe people here will appreciate. The year must have been before 1970. I was sitting on the living room floor watching our black-and-white tv, eating a Hershey bar, enjoying whatever comedy show I was watching.

                Then came one of the relentless "Feed the Children" type commercials, showing the suffering and starvation of 3rd world children. Ridden with a guilt I couldn't even identify at the time, I set my candy bar aside.

                My father had just come home, hot, sweaty and tired from working his ass off in the summer sun. He came unglued; absolutely furious. At first my guilt compounded; then he gently explained to me that his fury was directed at those propagandists (he didn't use that word), because he was out there working in the hot sun so that his little boy could enjoy a Hershey bar if he wanted to, and they had no business making me feel guilty because those other children couldn't. That my enjoying my Hershey bar had nothing whatever to do with their hunger and want. (he had a few more choice words about the work ethics of 3rd worlders which are mostly irrelevant to my point).

                Okay, Gulchers... how many of you recognize this "guilty of success" meme?

                Again, had I not had the good fortune of my nonconformist father, I would probably be one of the mindless proles out there feeling guilty for what little I've got, simply because someone else has less through no fault of mine.

                You are not free if your thoughts are not yours arrived at voluntarily through your own reasoning abilities.

                So, illegalizing certain language is honest, if bad. Brainwashing people into thinking certain language is bad is dishonest, and evil.

                I'd rather be shot for not conforming to a doctrine with which I disagree than made to conform with the collective's consensus. Either way, I, me, am dead. The latter merely preserves a zombie with my face and the collective's mind.

                Have none of you read 1984? Brave New World? Fallen Angels??


                How about at least have seen Star Drek?
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kPkgBq8...

                Hell, I can't even use rational arguments against some of the nonsense you moderns believe, without fear of being "outed", shunned and persecuted.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 10 years, 7 months ago
          You reject your own ability to choose for yourself whom to listen to! You reject your own rational thought!

          Communication is 90% persuasion. People are always trying to get you to agree with them. If you want to call that brainwashing, you are the very zombie product of society you fear becoming! Even in an honest society, you are going to have people who want you to agree with them. The education process is full of it - teachers who have knowledge they want to pass along. Do they not want you to agree with them? Of course!

          Wow. Please tell me that this post is a complete joke and that you really don't believe your own statements.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
            We went from a society where it was considered intolerable to perform acts of sodomy to one where it's a protected class; we went from a society where inter-racial relationships were considered as immoral as homosexual relationships to one where you are persecuted for even suggesting they might be immoral... in half a century. To suggest that that is "persuasion" and not "brainwashing" is irrational. But the biggest example of brainwashing is the war on tobacco, which is now being expanded to fast foods (but not mind-altering substances! Oh no! Must keep the citizens pacified with their Borloi...)

            If you want me to agree with you... use REASON. Do not insert tokens into movies, television, books, video games... do not portray protagonists as thinking and acting in ways you wish to promote, do not portray antagonists as thinking and acting in ways you wish to demonize.

            Yes, I believe it far better for a society, through its legislature, to honestly declare, "this behavior/item is now illegal", such as with the 18th Amendment, than a society that keeps it legal, but demonizes the product and its users *because it's profiting from the product's use*, such as with tobacco. The 18th Amendment can be repealed, but you can't repeal brain-washing.

            It's always assumed by moderns that the current state of modern society is a result of our "enlightenment" about the "evils" of our past; feeds the proles egos just fine, just kind of hard for me to reconcile with objective reality.

            I watch a guy walking down an aisle with his pants below his ass, and some giggly girl next to him thinking he's all that, and I find it hard to swallow that these creatures are somehow wiser or superior to the society that discouraged a man from leaving the house without a hat. And where did this... cough... fashion statement come from? Pop culture. Nobody got up in the morning and said, "you know, my pants hanging below my ass making me walk like a penguin is a good look for me, and the chicks will dig it." It came from scum in jail not being allowed to have a *belt* and wearing clothes that didn't fit. Somehow, those emulating this fashion got it brainwashed into them that that's the way to look powerful and attractive. I wonder where it came from.

            That's not the brainwashing. See, if I had a piece of clothing that didn't fit, like a hand-me-down from my elder brothers... my mother *mended* it. But, thanks to the brainwashing you pretend never happened, momma pursuing her career in the food service industry is more important than momma maintaining her children's appearance. Then, brainwashing upon brainwashing, the cart is placed before the horse and the brainwashers try to pretend that momma *had* to go to work, not that the feminazi's propaganda campaign, and the media's support with fiction glamorizing their agenda, led to the idea that women *deserved* a career outside the home, even after having dropped get, followed by the propaganda campaign that housework wasn't "women's work", followed by the campaign that anything culturally feminine was de facto sexist... and on and on, relentlessly. And this is just one facet of one aspect of the tremendously MASSIVE brainwashing campaign, relentlessly hammering the populace from every venue and walk of life. Big Brother has left no stone unturned.

            On the one hand, stealing from children the ability to reason, and on the other, spoon feeding them, through emotional triggers and associations, what the progressives wanted them to think, feel and believe. 1984 indeed.


            There's almost nothing I can watch, read or listen to anymore without a feeling of disgust deep in the pit of my stomach at the countless "truisms" and modern moral assumptions being shoved down everyone's throat. If there's an old movie or book I liked, and I hear there's going to be a film version or remake, I won't go see it, anymore. Not after what they did to Starship Troopers. (in point of fact, the straw that broke the camel's back came long before that movie, when they altered the ending of "Enemy Mine" to be a humanity-bashing PC screed. And Enemy Mine was one of THE best stories about cultural conflicts I've ever read).

            Even the movie critics on Youtube recognize that the movie "Avatar" is just a remake of yet another "White men suck" appeal to emotion story. Massive box-office success, with no one questioning the basic assumptions (like, why a pacific, harmony with nature culture would develop a warrior class...)

            People will flock to museums to look at "Guernica", but never read "Homage to Catalonia". Emotional appeal winning out over reason.

            Of course, old movies and books can't cut it in the modern mainstream brainwashed culture; one of the things brainwashed into them is the bigoted intolerance for anything not PC. And I promise you, my definition of PC is far more extensive than yours.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 7 months ago
          Wow, you've got some bassackwards ideas there. You think freedom is a society that executes people for saying the wrong thing, but slavery is a society that lets you say whatever you want while attempting to persuade you down a particular path via advertising. You honestly sound like Communist. That's not even an exaggeration. I literally mean that's the kind of thing a Communist would say. You hate commercial advertising, and you want to force people to behave a certain way be executing anyone who doesn't conform to the state's ideology. Perhaps you'd prefer to move to Russia? I hear tyranny and totalitarianism is on the rise there. I think you'd get along with Vlad Putin just fine...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
            ADVERTISING??? 24/7 relentless campaign telling the masses of proles how "good" people act and think and how "bad" people act and think is not "advertising". It's brainwashing.

            One of the problems I have in writing my stories is that my protagonists are evil, horrible, immoral bas... people... by the values of today's degenerate culture.

            I don't hate commercial advertising; commercial advertising is NOT the brainwashing I'm talking about, and I'd be willing to bet you know it and are once again trying to deflect.

            Ever watch "Hogan's Heroes"? Ever wonder why Sgt Kinchloe was the only black man in this pow camp, when the U.S. military was segregated during the war? He was the only black man from his all-black unit captured? And the notoriously racist Germans didn't segregate him with other black captives?

            Hell, that show is just one of thousands of brainwashing examples; we didn't defeat the Germans because our cause was just or our soldiers stronger, our tactics superior. We won because Germans are fools. One of the oldest propaganda tools, one of the oldest brainwashing methods is to hold your opposition up to unjustified ridicule, to grant them characteristics they might well not even possess. Homosexuals wouldn't know about this, would they?

            "Victor/Victoria", speaking of that aspect of the war on the mind, is another great example. All of the protagonists are pro-homosexual... not tolerance... acceptance. The only holdout is James Garner's character, who is shown having ambiguity about his sexuality, and then embracing the homosexual community, having wizened up through the course of the movie. All the antagonists are, of course, not only homophobic, but immoral in other ways, as well (damnation by association), such as murderous, thieving, adulterous, and/or promiscuous.

            I could go on and on, movie after movie, tv show after tv show, revisionist documentaries, textbooks, fiction books, to the point now where you almost can't get a non-PC message out there (thank God for the internet...). All dishonestly pushing the same ideas via appeals to emotion, not reason. And demonizing anyone who successfully strays outside the message of the agenda.

            If a community, jointly, decides that cussing in public is not acceptable, then they should pass a law punishing people who cuss in public. But, the idea of "persuading" people that cussing in public is unacceptable presumes that there are superior beings, "older and wiser heads" as it were, to convince people to conform. Not by reasoned argument, but by emotional appeal.

            You forget... I was punished... and THEN came the attempts at persuasion... mostly from khalling, iirc. The powers that be here didn't try to convince me not to say such things; I was encouraged to defend my statement ('sandbagged' in the vernacular).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 7 months ago
              24/7 relentless campaign? What are you talking about? I hardly ever see any anti-smoking ads. Sure, I see a few anti-smoking posters and billboards sometimes, and occasionally anti-smoking commercials will come across on television, but there's certainly no 24/7 broadcast that anyone is being forced to watch. The quantity of anti-smoking advertisements is exactly the same as the quantity of advertisements for literally anything else.

              And no, I've never watched Hogan's Heroes. Anything prior to 1980 was before my time, and I usually don't go out of my way to watch old TV shows from 50 years ago. If you want to use Hogan's Heroes as an example to demonstrate a particular point, you're going to have to explain the plot to me, otherwise I'm not going to know what it is you're trying to say. I cannot answer the questions you've raised about the characters in Hogan's Heroes, because I've never watched the show.

              I've never watched the movie "Victor Victoria" either, but after doing a quick google search I found this trailer:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APuLUq1k...

              It looks like a pretty good movie, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

              But anyway, to address your point, punishment for thinking differently is not the hallmark of a free society. It is the antithesis of freedom.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Hiraghm 10 years, 7 months ago
                There you go again.. ADs! You said "ads" NOT ME.

                No, there's no anti-smoking ads... lots of movies and tv shows where the antagonists are puffing on cigars or cigarettes. Seldom if ever will you see the protagonist take a drag on a butt. Even in Atlas Shrugged, only Hugh Akston actually takes a puff.

                Hogan's Heroes was based very loosely on "Stalag 17" (an excellent William Holden, pro-objectivist movie, IMO), and "The Great Escape". A group of POWs in a German camp operate an underground resistance cell, making complete fools of their captors, who are foolish, cowardly, craven, easily blackmailed, and even the SS troops have feet of clay.

                Yes, Victor/Victoria is a well-made movie with an exceptional cast of actors.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo