On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:29:45 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Only because of tenure (IMHO), but Cirus is on a rapid climb to upsurp that
position. What a tramp!

Well, it's always been about getting attention hasn't it? Fame or
(infamy) anyway you can appears to be de rigueur. Cirus hasn't broken
any laws that I'm aware of. All she has done so far is shock people.
It remains to be seen whether she takes the next steps that you're
alluding to..

On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:59:53 -0500, wrote:
Ron Howard didn't turn out TOO bad. He's a typical liberal Hollyweird
type but seems to be alright otherwise.

Yes, but he was an earlier generation. The internet and instant
worldwide attention wasn't available when he was a kid.

I think it's deeper than that. The parents go nuts over the fame and
fortune (which they steal from the child) and it pollutes their whole
life. I thought Cyrus' parents were better than that but I was way
wrong.

I'd suggest it's society in general accompanied with the parent's
leniency that's the problem. But then, if they had been normal,
responsible parents, the child likely would never have become
infamous.

On 2/2/2014 11:58 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 02 Feb 2014 08:29:54 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Take heart in knowing that there is a petition going around to ban
Justin Beiber from the US.

Y'all will have that treasure back! ;!)

Ok, we'll take him back. But, only if you promise to keep
Lindsay Lohan from visiting us.

This whole thread has been really special. Made me laugh. A bunch of
old men cluck-clucking about the younger generation, forgetting the
rotten stuff we did (or wanted to do) as youngsters. It has been fun.
I will sign off now as your humble baby killin', tree huggin',
democratic, leftie, socialist, pinko, sissy, left wing, com-dup,
com-simp, commie puke.
mahalo,
jo4hn

On 2/4/2014 4:14 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:29:45 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Only because of tenure (IMHO), but Cirus is on a rapid climb to upsurp that
position. What a tramp!

Well, it's always been about getting attention hasn't it? Fame or
(infamy) anyway you can appears to be de rigueur. Cirus hasn't broken
any laws that I'm aware of. All she has done so far is shock people.
It remains to be seen whether she takes the next steps that you're
alluding to..



I think total nudity from the ankles up, and swinging around on a ball
and chain might be breaking some laws somewhere.

Unfortunately this type of public behavior leads to the loss of pride,
decency, and morals.

But just something to think about, 40 years ago being gay and publicly
showing affection between two adults of the same sex was scandalous,
immoral, and against the law in many places. Today it is now lawful
for gays to marry in some places.

By the exact same token a few hundred years ago and in some cases maybe
only 100 years ago it was common and acceptable for an older man to
marry a "young" girl/teenager.

Now given all that is acceptable now, why not let a man in his 30's have
a sexual relationship with a 13 year old girl if both are willing?

See where this is going. The more we accept immoral acts the more the
acts become less immoral and eventually the men will club a woman or
girl over the head and drag her home and the sooner our society fails.

On 2/3/2014 5:59 PM, krw@a
ttt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 12:07:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

woodchucker wrote:


But then again, any child star has that ability to turn into the most
F'd up adult. The lack of proper parenting, the constant nurturing of
an out of control ego.., and never saying no to the brats.

Ron Howard didn't turn out TOO bad. He's a typical liberal Hollyweird
type but seems to be alright otherwise.

Well, you see what he and his handlers want you to see. Not saying that
he is not a perfect example of what one should strive to be but unless
you know him you really don't know him.

Rock Hudson, Andy Griffith, Peter Sellers? all seemed to be stand up
guys at one time.



The latter part of that statement being the most meaningful in my opinion.

I think it's deeper than that. The parents go nuts over the fame and
fortune (which they steal from the child) and it pollutes their whole
life. I thought Cyrus' parents were better than that but I was way
wrong.


Well her parents might be better but do you remember the picture of
Miley and her dad together laying on top of each other and both trying
to look like sexy?

I think where an unbridled flow of money is concerned morals go out the
window. If these people were truly talented, the type of talent that
has the staying power, they probably would not be doing what they are
doing to stay on the front pages do scandal magazines.

As it is, get while the getting is good.

On 2/4/2014 4:20 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:59:53 -0500, wrote:
Ron Howard didn't turn out TOO bad. He's a typical liberal Hollyweird
type but seems to be alright otherwise.

Yes, but he was an earlier generation. The internet and instant
worldwide attention wasn't available when he was a kid.

Well morals have gone out the window too these days.

What was wrong in the past is not right. And by the same token what was
right in the past is now wrong.



I think it's deeper than that. The parents go nuts over the fame and
fortune (which they steal from the child) and it pollutes their whole
life. I thought Cyrus' parents were better than that but I was way
wrong.

I'd suggest it's society in general accompanied with the parent's
leniency that's the problem. But then, if they had been normal,
responsible parents, the child likely would never have become
infamous.


Exactly

On 2/4/2014 9:41 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/4/2014 4:14 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:29:45 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Only because of tenure (IMHO), but Cirus is on a rapid climb to
upsurp that
position. What a tramp!

Well, it's always been about getting attention hasn't it? Fame or
(infamy) anyway you can appears to be de rigueur. Cirus hasn't broken
any laws that I'm aware of. All she has done so far is shock people.
It remains to be seen whether she takes the next steps that you're
alluding to..



I think total nudity from the ankles up, and swinging around on a ball
and chain might be breaking some laws somewhere.

Unfortunately this type of public behavior leads to the loss of pride,
decency, and morals.

But just something to think about, 40 years ago being gay and publicly
showing affection between two adults of the same sex was scandalous,
immoral, and against the law in many places. Today it is now lawful
for gays to marry in some places.

By the exact same token a few hundred years ago and in some cases maybe
only 100 years ago it was common and acceptable for an older man to
marry a "young" girl/teenager.

Now given all that is acceptable now, why not let a man in his 30's have
a sexual relationship with a 13 year old girl if both are willing?

See where this is going. The more we accept immoral acts the more the
acts become less immoral and eventually the men will club a woman or
girl over the head and drag her home and the sooner our society fails.
I think that's happened more than once..
Joe Piscapo
Woody Allen

Back in my moms day, it was common to marry at 17,18
100-200 years ago, 13,14 was norm.

There has been a recent degredation, but there was also a puritanical
tightening up not too long ago.

--
Jeff

On 2/4/2014 9:31 AM, woodchucker wrote:
On 2/4/2014 9:41 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/4/2014 4:14 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:29:45 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Only because of tenure (IMHO), but Cirus is on a rapid climb to
upsurp that
position. What a tramp!

Well, it's always been about getting attention hasn't it? Fame or
(infamy) anyway you can appears to be de rigueur. Cirus hasn't broken
any laws that I'm aware of. All she has done so far is shock people.
It remains to be seen whether she takes the next steps that you're
alluding to..



I think total nudity from the ankles up, and swinging around on a ball
and chain might be breaking some laws somewhere.

Unfortunately this type of public behavior leads to the loss of pride,
decency, and morals.

But just something to think about, 40 years ago being gay and publicly
showing affection between two adults of the same sex was scandalous,
immoral, and against the law in many places. Today it is now lawful
for gays to marry in some places.

By the exact same token a few hundred years ago and in some cases maybe
only 100 years ago it was common and acceptable for an older man to
marry a "young" girl/teenager.

Now given all that is acceptable now, why not let a man in his 30's have
a sexual relationship with a 13 year old girl if both are willing?

See where this is going. The more we accept immoral acts the more the
acts become less immoral and eventually the men will club a woman or
girl over the head and drag her home and the sooner our society fails.
I think that's happened more than once..
Joe Piscapo
Woody Allen

Back in my moms day, it was common to marry at 17,18
100-200 years ago, 13,14 was norm.

There has been a recent degredation, but there was also a puritanical
tightening up not too long ago.


I think we can cast much of the blame on our government leaders. They
lead by example.

On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:41:55 -0600, Leon wrote:

On 2/4/2014 4:14 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:29:45 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Only because of tenure (IMHO), but Cirus is on a rapid climb to upsurp that
position. What a tramp!

Well, it's always been about getting attention hasn't it? Fame or
(infamy) anyway you can appears to be de rigueur. Cirus hasn't broken
any laws that I'm aware of. All she has done so far is shock people.
It remains to be seen whether she takes the next steps that you're
alluding to..



I think total nudity from the ankles up, and swinging around on a ball
and chain might be breaking some laws somewhere.

Unfortunately this type of public behavior leads to the loss of pride,
decency, and morals.

But just something to think about, 40 years ago being gay and publicly
showing affection between two adults of the same sex was scandalous,
immoral, and against the law in many places. Today it is now lawful
for gays to marry in some places.

By the exact same token a few hundred years ago and in some cases maybe
only 100 years ago it was common and acceptable for an older man to
marry a "young" girl/teenager.

Now given all that is acceptable now, why not let a man in his 30's have
a sexual relationship with a 13 year old girl if both are willing?

See where this is going. The more we accept immoral acts the more the
acts become less immoral and eventually the men will club a woman or
girl over the head and drag her home and the sooner our society fails.

I guess I'am not as optimistic as you are, our society has already
failed...

basilisk

jo4hn wrote:

This whole thread has been really special. Made me laugh. A bunch of
old men cluck-clucking about the younger generation, forgetting the
rotten stuff we did (or wanted to do) as youngsters. It has been fun.
I will sign off now as your humble baby killin', tree huggin',
democratic, leftie, socialist, pinko, sissy, left wing, com-dup,
com-simp, commie puke.

Man - that's one hell of a business card you got there Jo4hn! You just need
to add "deflowerer of virgins, slayer of dragons, and..." oh wait... is it
that or is it "deflowerer of dragons and slayer of virgins"?

--

-Mike-

On 2/4/2014 10:03 AM, basilisk wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:41:55 -0600, Leon wrote:

On 2/4/2014 4:14 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 11:29:45 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Only because of tenure (IMHO), but Cirus is on a rapid climb to upsurp that
position. What a tramp!

Well, it's always been about getting attention hasn't it? Fame or
(infamy) anyway you can appears to be de rigueur. Cirus hasn't broken
any laws that I'm aware of. All she has done so far is shock people.
It remains to be seen whether she takes the next steps that you're
alluding to..



I think total nudity from the ankles up, and swinging around on a ball
and chain might be breaking some laws somewhere.

Unfortunately this type of public behavior leads to the loss of pride,
decency, and morals.

But just something to think about, 40 years ago being gay and publicly
showing affection between two adults of the same sex was scandalous,
immoral, and against the law in many places. Today it is now lawful
for gays to marry in some places.

By the exact same token a few hundred years ago and in some cases maybe
only 100 years ago it was common and acceptable for an older man to
marry a "young" girl/teenager.

Now given all that is acceptable now, why not let a man in his 30's have
a sexual relationship with a 13 year old girl if both are willing?

See where this is going. The more we accept immoral acts the more the
acts become less immoral and eventually the men will club a woman or
girl over the head and drag her home and the sooner our society fails.

I guess I'am not as optimistic as you are, our society has already
failed...

basilisk


Good observation. The gays can marry now and older men wedding teenager
girls has already been accepted in the past.

On 2/4/2014 8:19 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
jo4hn wrote:

This whole thread has been really special. Made me laugh. A bunch of
old men cluck-clucking about the younger generation, forgetting the
rotten stuff we did (or wanted to do) as youngsters. It has been fun.
I will sign off now as your humble baby killin', tree huggin',
democratic, leftie, socialist, pinko, sissy, left wing, com-dup,
com-simp, commie puke.

Man - that's one hell of a business card you got there Jo4hn! You just need
to add "deflowerer of virgins, slayer of dragons, and..." oh wait... is it
that or is it "deflowerer of dragons and slayer of virgins"?

"Now where is that Eskimo I'm supposed to wrestle?"
:-)

On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:59:38 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/4/2014 4:20 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:59:53 -0500, wrote:
Ron Howard didn't turn out TOO bad. He's a typical liberal Hollyweird
type but seems to be alright otherwise.

Yes, but he was an earlier generation. The internet and instant
worldwide attention wasn't available when he was a kid.

Well morals have gone out the window too these days.

What was wrong in the past is not right. And by the same token what was
right in the past is now wrong.

I thought nothing was "wrong", now. "Right" and "wrong" are just so
relative.

On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:38:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
I think we can cast much of the blame on our government leaders. They
lead by example.

Maybe, but I think most of them have/had good intentions in what they
did, just that things didn't turn out quite as planned.

On 02/04/2014 05:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:38:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
I think we can cast much of the blame on our government leaders. They
lead by example.

Maybe, but I think most of them have/had good intentions in what they
did, just that things didn't turn out quite as planned.

The problem is that they think intentions are more important than results.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:52:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 02/04/2014 05:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:38:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
I think we can cast much of the blame on our government leaders. They
lead by example.

Maybe, but I think most of them have/had good intentions in what they
did, just that things didn't turn out quite as planned.

The problem is that they think intentions are more important than results.

Worse, the majority of the voters agree.

On 2/4/2014 6:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:38:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
I think we can cast much of the blame on our government leaders. They
lead by example.

Maybe, but I think most of them have/had good intentions in what they
did, just that things didn't turn out quite as planned.



Hummmmmm. I think our government leaders pander to those that don't
know any better and promise them what they cannot deliver. So when I
say that I am going to pay your bills and only do so by increasing your
taxes......... Promote stupidity and you get more stupidity.

The absolute worst the thing that the government leaders could do to
themselves is spend money on teaching people how to manage their money
and be responsible of their own welfare.

The more the government gives the more it promotes poverty.

On 2/4/2014 6:52 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 02/04/2014 05:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:38:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
I think we can cast much of the blame on our government leaders. They
lead by example.

Maybe, but I think most of them have/had good intentions in what they
did, just that things didn't turn out quite as planned.

The problem is that they think intentions are more important than results.



Check mate!

On 2/4/2014 7:04 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:52:52 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 02/04/2014 05:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:38:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
I think we can cast much of the blame on our government leaders. They
lead by example.

Maybe, but I think most of them have/had good intentions in what they
did, just that things didn't turn out quite as planned.

The problem is that they think intentions are more important than results.

Worse, the majority of the voters agree.

Yeah and the dumber the voter base the easier they are to fool, election
after election after election..........

It is important that our education system get worse to insure dumb voter
turn out expecting to elect The Wizard of OZ.

On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:10:53 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/4/2014 6:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 08:56:52 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/3/2014 5:59 PM, krw@a
ttt.bizz wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 12:07:13 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

woodchucker wrote:


But then again, any child star has that ability to turn into the most
F'd up adult. The lack of proper parenting, the constant nurturing of
an out of control ego.., and never saying no to the brats.

Ron Howard didn't turn out TOO bad. He's a typical liberal Hollyweird
type but seems to be alright otherwise.

Well, you see what he and his handlers want you to see. Not saying that
he is not a perfect example of what one should strive to be but unless
you know him you really don't know him.

Are you saying that Bieber's handlers want you to see a spoiled-rotten
druggie?

Bingo. With some so called talent if it were not for the bad publicity
there would be no publicity. There is a point however when you cross
the line and for many of us that line has already been crossed. But we
are not the ones that matter.

I'm not buying it. He's just on a crash course to meet Belushi.

Rock Hudson, Andy Griffith, Peter Sellers? all seemed to be stand up
guys at one time.

Hudson raised eyebrows with is sexual preferences and IIRC Sellers had
some weirdness, too. AG was, by all accounts, up and up. I think AG
was the straight behind Ron Howard's arrow.

Not from what I have heard. AG may have a straight appearance in recent
years because of how the rest of the world looks by comparison. And at
some point looks give way and the party is over.

Don't buy that, either. AG has long been credited with keeping RH's
head straight when he was a kid.

...

On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 19:16:31 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/4/2014 6:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 04 Feb 2014 09:38:45 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
I think we can cast much of the blame on our government leaders. They
lead by example.

Maybe, but I think most of them have/had good intentions in what they
did, just that things didn't turn out quite as planned.



Hummmmmm. I think our government leaders pander to those that don't
know any better and promise them what they cannot deliver. So when I
say that I am going to pay your bills and only do so by increasing your
taxes......... Promote stupidity and you get more stupidity.

The absolute worst the thing that the government leaders could do to
themselves is spend money on teaching people how to manage their money
and be responsible of their own welfare.

Which is why it's no longer taught. If you wanted to *do* the most
for the people, teach them the power of compound interest.

The more the government gives the more it promotes poverty.

wrote in message ...


Years ago I made the drive to north of Atlanta (as I remember) to a

It would have been handy if the Atlanta area woodworkers had spread all
their sawdust on the roads before I got there last Wednesday morning. ;~)

Leon wrote:

Not from what I have heard. AG may have a straight appearance in
recent years because of how the rest of the world looks by
comparison. And at some point looks give way and the party is over.

Huh? Hell Leon - what did you hear and from whom?

--

-Mike-

On 2/4/2014 10:45 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:

Not from what I have heard. AG may have a straight appearance in
recent years because of how the rest of the world looks by
comparison. And at some point looks give way and the party is over.

Huh? Hell Leon - what did you hear and from whom?



I first heard about that some 35~40 years ago. IIRC there were about 4
of them. Rock, Andy, Jim, and some one else.

But google it and see that I am not the only one that has heard of this
whether it be true or not.

On 2/4/2014 11:28 PM, Leon wrote:
But google it and see that I am not the only one that has heard of this
whether it be true or not.

Bawn jour ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 2/5/2014 7:36 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/4/2014 11:28 PM, Leon wrote:
But google it and see that I am not the only one that has heard of this
whether it be true or not.

Bawn jour ...




Yeah buddy! It has to be true! At least it is true that there are
rumors. ;~)

On 2/5/2014 5:36 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/4/2014 11:28 PM, Leon wrote:
But google it and see that I am not the only one that has heard of this
whether it be true or not.

Bawn jour ... :-)