No can do. Because then he’d have to read for comprehension.
<Dirty Harry>:::Starvin’ knows his limitations.:::</DityH>
Back then everyone owned a shotgun (fer shootin’ supper on the way home from that one room schoolhouse dontchakno?), so there may have been teen pregnancies, but they damned sure weren’t unwed!
And that made it okay.
-Joe
It’ll probably never happen, but I think it’d be awesome if every post in this thread from now on did nothing but encourage Starving Artist to respond to the study brought up by Lance Turbo (and FinnAgain), and explain how he can still hold the view that teenage pregnancy is up since us damn kids came on the scene. If we keep bringing up stuff like the Beatles we’re just giving him an easy out.
Granted, I don’t actually think he’ll respond to the study at all, even when facing a wall of posters requesting that he do so. But I’m very interested to see how such an accomplished bullshit artist manages to weasel his way out of it.
More of an amateur bullshit finger-painter, I think.
Starving Artist, I encourage you to respond to the study brought up by Lance Turbo (and FinnAgain); please explain how you can still hold the view that teenage pregnancy is up since us damn kids came on the scene.
Ooh, teens wearing clothes that the older generation didn’t approve of! That never happened before the Beatles! :rolleyes:
Just for fun, here’s the “raggedy and dirty” look of the Who and the Rolling Stones at the height of hippiedom, circa 1967.
Sure thing.
(emphasis added)
Now, lets see. Prior to the 60’s is most likely the 50’s, no? Unless you want to claim major progress in the 40’s or 30’s.
So, yeah, you said it and yeah, when called upon it, you bailed.
Jazz and cubism, man. Fucked society right up. And don’t get me started on the Dada cartel.
The foul influence of so-called “Modern Art” had been poisoning our world long before Cubism, primarily the soul-destroying effect of French Impressionism. A love of Monet is the root of all evil.
Prior to the late 60s could also mean the early sixties. I seem to recall a couple of Civil Rights Acts passed in 1964 and 1965. Also 1957 and 1960. So that’s four before 1968.
No, it’s that Conservative Land is Opposite Land. They’ll spin any issue to make “liberals” be the ones who look bad.
I’ll grant SA that his points are more along the lines of what I regard are the proper definitions of conservative and liberal. Unlike libertarian-style conservatism (“fiscal-” being a large part of that), that could be portrayed as “permissive” in its own right.
SA’s real problem is what he’s calling is something–or more often a lack of something–is far too vast and deep and varied to be tied up in a sack with a label on it.
As your cite attests, regarding the 1957 act as an advance in civil rights is largely an excercise in selective cognition.
Nay, art be cursed 'ere since the foul birth of perspective, the Devil’s own trickery!
:applause:
That was beautiful, man. I may not agree with it, but that was an amazingly well-written post.
You have harped on Starving Artist for failing to address your request. It turns out that he didn’t say what you said he said, and it turns out that there were indeed Civil Rights Acts passed before 1968. At least have the graciousness to admit your own error, having hammered at SA for something that he was not, actually in error about.
Lord knows there is enough in what he has asserted that is so totally cockamamie that it’s not going to let him “win” to admit you had it wrong.
You don’t say. Monet, Van Gogh and his fiend of a friend Gaugain. Painting naked ladies all day long under the sun of Tahiti, never did a god damn honest day of work in his entire life ! As for the rest of them dot splotching… French… well, let’s just say that if they painted so well, they’d draw dang straight lines and shadows and stuff, instead of that blurry crap. I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like, and if the Déjeuner Sur l’Herbe is art, I’m Grant Wood !
Maybe there wasn’t as much to steal in those days, especially items of the small, valuable, and easily portable kind. TVs were huge pieces of furniture and radios weren’t much smaller. A minority of families possessed good sterling, jewelry, and/or antiques enough to make it worth a thief’s while. But most of the things we think of as likely targets today didn’t exist. I never heard of a time when stores and offices didn’t lock up at the end of day. So why would anybody leave their house unlocked? At the same time, I could conceivably leave my house unlocked every day for a week and be reasonably confident that I’m not going to be burglarized.
Just as I confidently walk over to the Chinese restaurant at the end of my block, without fear of getting mugged.
I had forgotten what a piece of shit you are!
Not only did you bring up my calling you “granny” (and not for the reason you said but because your filthy, vulgar language was so at odds with most peoples’ image of a loving grandmother doting on her granddaughter) but you completely left out that when you mentioned later on that you no longer post about your granddaughter because of that, I told you that having that effect on you was not my intent and I promised to stop calling you granny at that time. And I have not done so since.
And now you post vile, filthy shit like this! I fucking dare, defy, challenge or anything else you’d like to call it, you to come up with one fucking instance out of my 7,500 posts that even comes close to indicating that I’m capable of any of those vile accusations.
You are a vile, disgusting piece of shit! Far, far worse than I ever imagined! Your granddaughter would be well served to keep as far, far away from you as possible in the hope that none of you ever rubs off on her.
I’ll never treat you with respect or consideration ever again, Granny!
Hey liar, shouldn’t you be asleep at this late hour?
Starving Artist, I encourage you to respond to the study brought up by Lance Turbo (and FinnAgain); please explain how you can still hold the view that teenage pregnancy is up since us damn kids came on the scene.