I'm Naked!

“Who could imagine,
That they could freak out
In Kansas, Kansas, Kansas,
Kansas......???”

“I move my family aside.....




Nothing in the the street,

the parting on the left, is now parting right...


We won't get fooled again!”

“And all this from the guy who gave me crap over a thread on a person (and it wasn't a naked person. Perhaps THAT -- the UNnakedness -- was the problem???!)”

“Tip one back for me, Lizzy.”

“Sorry, this ain't a chit stirin` thread, lizs.


We just be gettin~ naked and postin~

BIG difference



If ya want, I'll show ya how BIG a difference it is ~”

“Be careful, I don't wanna cause no damage!”

“LOL! Did that already. Back from a concert. No one was nekkid, though, so I couldn't start a thread. heheheee

LOL! ;-)

How is life on the plains, Dunny? How's the bag nights coming along? ;-) I bet you're just rolling!!”

“A beach is a place where a man can feel....”

“but I remeber that face when we were back in '63!”

“Sometime, I still sleep no the beach...




spend my days licking boots for my perks....”

“That thread was not chit stirrin... stupid maybe, but no more so than this.

Big difference?? Bah! A TINY, TINY difference I see. MINISCULE! TEENY! :-)”

“Tell it to the choir, sister.

I'm, a *member* of the pipefitters union.


Ask the wife.

This is for fun, nothing like yer crap threads.

Oh! Sorry, this is a private pissing thread. Unless yer naked while posting, ......”

“What is it?

Who is she?

Where is it?



Doctor Jimmy and Mr. Jim.



He only comes out when I drink my gin.....




is it me....for a moment?


the sky is a fallin~”

“cool!


side two is about ready!”

“

"A beach is a place where a man can feel...."
laqtis

There's something to that! Beach buffs ignore nudity ban ”

“Sorry Q. You don't have room to talk about anyone else posting 'crap threads' after this ---”

“Wow. Remind me never take a poly sci course! Or maybe it's the Zappa/Poly Sci combo. LOL

BTW, Q, nice picture! Wooohoo! *hee, hee*”

“Poly Sci paper, eh?

How's your head this morning, Q?

Nudity meets Frank Zappa meets Hannibal Lechter meets Cheap Trick meets the Who???? What was the title of this Political Science paper, anywho?”

“"What was the title of this Political Science paper, anywho?...."


Feeling GREAT! Title? "Do You See What I See: The Conservative Side of Internet Porn"

Tilt - I don't really care about crap threads, like I said before, it's the chit stiring threads that are a boner.

I've always liked a good crap thread!”

“Who you jivin' with that cosmic debris?”

“Q, I think you've done your share of shit-stirring too..... It just happened to be your preferred shit, LOL”

“Absolutly!


Hey, I'm fine with the fact that I have a double standard and I'm a hyprocrite!

It's the American way!

Why be tied down to the constrants of consistance? That's no FUN!

C'Mon, tilt! Be one of us! Be in the "in" crowd! LOL!”

“Hey, I'm so cool, I'm my own 'In Crowd'.... LOL”

“Late reply, but.....All is cool, so cool here in Dorothy's home state, Lizzy. Iowa still rockin' your world?
When we gonna drink that beer?”

“'member, dunny, I'm in Minnie-soda now. I know, I know... (who wants to be a stinkin' gopher?? NOT ME! I'm awaiting the right moment to plaster a Hawkeye over the neighbor's sign for some Gopher thing, either football tix or a capital campaign or something)”

“"Somebody told me
you had a boyfriend
who looked like a girlfriend
that I had in February of last year"”

“I'm not.”

“Hey, hey, I had forgotten you were a gopher, Lizzy. Minnesota is cool with me. A fantastic state, with lots of good folks.”

“Personally, I think Q was smoking something last night or was it Saturday night? Wonder how the paper came out?”

“i think your thinking the same thing i'm thinking









i think,


does that make any sense?”

“Whatever Q was hitting....



I want to try it.”

“Well, he tried posting nude. Maybe that will become a TT fad!

Hmmm. All I've had on all day is my shorts.

There, that took care of the shorts. Now I'm posting nude. Feels kinda good!”

“Hi.

Can y'all get a little more perverted here?”

“""Personally, I think Q was smoking something last night or was it Saturday night? Wonder how the paper came out?....."

""Whatever Q was hitting....



I want to try it....."


When confronted with a dull issue, such as a conservative beeyach ripping up the First Amendment as it pertains to internet porn, sometimes wirters have to have a "release", shall we say in order to decontaminate the mind.

Paper? Here it is:


Do You See What I See: The Conservative Side of Web Porn
One day, late during one summer as the city of Los Angles was burning, Rodney King stepped up to the podium. His voice trembling, his body sweating from nervousness and heat, he proceeds to utter words that shaped the situation at hand: “Why can’t we all just get along?” Little did Mr. King know at the time that those words would go down in the history books right next to another famous Kings words, “Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, free at last”. Both of these sentences convey a message of reaching out, a feeling of hope, a feeling of bringing together sides that opposed themselves with such a viciousness that one side couldn’t even hear what the other was saying. Sometimes, when two opposing sides are aimlessly whacking away at each other, it’s hard for them to see who is right; and who is right. On the issue of the recent Supreme Courts action on internet pornography, the conservative website sight Human Events online will even take aim at the Republican controlled Supreme Court, showing that even their fellow conservatives are not safe when they don’t agree with them one-hundred percent.
At issue is the Child Online Protection Act, which was signed be President Clinton in 1998. In 2000, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Court found that COPA was unconstitutional for reasons not mentioned in the article, which might lead one to question the articles bias right off the bat, but more on that later. According to the article, since this ruling, the case has been before the Supreme Court twice in four years. In the cases latest appearance, it was the opinion of the Supreme Court that COPA most likely violates the free speech rights of adults who want to access pornography, but in what most would call a compromise action, the court referred the case back to the appeals court to see if this time new technologies might help in solving this matter. The author tries to paint the Supreme Court as being hypocritical, citing an earlier ruling in the December 2003 case of McConnell v. Federal Election Committee. This case cited “…that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law could restrict the right of an interest group to run ads that mentioned a candidate’s name within 60 days of an election”. The irony of this whole argument from the author is that this obvious staunch conservative uses a piece of legislation passed by a liberal President to beat up her fellow Republicans.
Rather than take the high road and applaud the idea of compromise, the author goes on the attack and she’s not even coy with her words. For example, the very first line of the article reads “Explain this to me…” which is an obvious confrontational tone. Later on, she spouts “As incomprehensible as it might seem…” hoping to hook the reader into the pit of her bias. And as the venom continues, she only refers to the people who provide Internet pornography as pornographers only once and only in the opening part of the article, then results to use such terms as “Smut Peddlers” and the ever-popular “pornoholics”. On top of it, she doesn’t even give the full opinion of the court in detail, but just the dissenting opinion of Justice Stephen Breyer, who she uses to stabilize her argument. After quoting Justice Breyer, she then writes ”It’s bad enough that a majority of the court rejected this reasoning, but it’s indefensible…” further driving her bias down the throat of the reader.
Almost at nausea, the author refers to the First Amendment in this article, first by twisting the action by the court by saying ”…The Supreme Court of the United States says that the First Amendment protects the right of hard-core pornographers to lure children into “adult” Web sites where they will be exposed to every manner of sexual behavior?” She then tries to get inside the heads of the Founding Fathers, by claiming that it is political speech that was the intended type of free speech they were trying to protect, not pornography. This is a weak at best argument, as the Founding Fathers could not anticipate absolutely everything that would come up regarding the First Amendment, or the Constitution for that matter and had no other choice but to leave it open for later generations to deal with as situations would arise. Also, what the author fails to realize is that it’s a fact that many types of pornography have been in many different cultures long before America was even a thought. So, what’s to think that the Founding Fathers, being men after all, actually wanted to protect pornography, but didn’t want to come right out and list it as a “covered” item?
What the author does not realize, is that the intention of the First Amendment was to cover multiple items, but most importantly, make sure that the government would not evolve its self with just one religion with the inclusion of the establishment clause. Had they wrote the Constitution or the Bill of Rights to be concrete and exact, we wouldn’t have the need for amendments in the first place and therefore, amendments would be allowed; however, this is the genius of these documents. The ability to have a structure of government able to evolve with changing times and culture. Seeing as it is a fact that laws are a direct reflection of the immediate culture in a given area, the Founding Fathers obviously had the forethought to know that everyone coming to American in the future might not be just like them.


Please note that there are certain areas that I mst address from lectures in class and chapters read. Also, this is my rough and I haven't gooten around to correcting all of the errors in it. My editor has done that for me, as I'm currently scribing my other Poli Sci paper -

Let Go My Ego: Federism at Risk.

It's s lovely tale of how the House of Reps passed the Marriage Protection Act the same day the 9/11 report came out. What's the bid deal and how is Federalism at risk? The act say that the Supreme Court can not decide whether the Defence of Marriage Act is constiutional or not, thus opening up the door for one branch of government to be able to have more pwer over another...that is IF it passed the Senate. FYI, Bush sez he'll sign the thing if it ever got to his desk.



Do you see why I gotta post naked sometimes?”

“OK, so I have been inspried to post naked while at work.

























Yea, right. Sorry, don't think so. Maybe later.”

“I feel exposed. So I'm putting my shorts on again. And in a little while I'll be headed for class, where I can unwind and throw some people around the mat.”

“this place is so empty since the bankruptcy and subsequent asset sale that I really could post naked at work!”

“Buncha FREAKS!!!!”

“I sometimes feel very attached to my shorts. Especially after about two weeks on a trail. They become a growing part of me.”

“LMFAO!”

“ok, now thats gross.

wash those things out man!”

“ok, i'm gettin dressed to go home now.

seeyas”

“

"Buncha FREAKS!!!!"
roseymonster

Now there's someone I'd like to have in class for a few minutes.”

“Get your crotch bead-blasted first, NowSlimmer!”

“roseymonster -Aren't you the same guy that used to let your dog do his thing near my park bench in Central Park? I can still smell it!
LOL”

“Whooooooo Yhooooooo!!!!


Set the boys free!


Or do I need to switch to beer?


Booo!”

“For God sakes man, put some clothes on!!”

“No way!



I let it all hang out for Kerry!

(sorry, inside joke. My wife's name is Kerry!)”

“at least put on a loincloth”

“(Information Not Needed)”