Gershwin fan

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gershwin fan

  1. Mine was removed a bit later than most of your's. It was removed earlier today and I was going to watch In the Mood for Love on TCM on Demand too. :( I wish they would at least leave us that option if they have to take the channel. Really though I try to find films for free online (usually through Mega service if I can). In this day, there are many options available to find films where you don't even have to pay a cent.



    Not in recent memory has going to the movies been pervaded by such a looming sense of potential death. The lead-up to Todd Phillip’s Joker, starring Joaquin Phoenix in the titular role, was met with widespread media outcry that the film could be a target for a mass shooting like the one at a 2012 screening of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado. The villainous Joker wasn’t in that particular Batman movie, the sequel to Heath Ledger’s Academy Award-winning Joker performance in The Dark Knight—but he turned up nonetheless in the form of James Holmes, who killed twelve people and left many more injured.

    Now the Joker is back—and not in the form of Ledger’s gritty-but-witty gangster kingpin that executes a spectacular bank robbery at the beginning of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight. Phoenix’s Joker is not the supervillain who meets his match in the vigilante aristocrat Batman. Not yet at least. Now we see the Joker getting his own superhero-origin-story treatment. And the Joker’s origin is that he is a pathetic incel.

    At least that’s how the hype would have it. In our age when news is just an inventory of the most-mentioned social media outrages at any given moment, “all press is good press” reigns especially true when corralling the lazy masses off their couches and into the cinemas. Nothing is more seductive than the possibility that one could be senselessly murdered.


    Female Agents (2008) Jean-Paul Salomé, France - 7/10 - Basically an all female version of the Dirty Dozen. In 1944, an English geologist doing a test to prepare for D- Day is captured by the Germans and an all female team of prisoners and soldiers is made to go behind enemy lines and bring him back. They are headed by a man but soon he is captured and they are left alone in enemy controlled France with the mission of killing the evil German general Heidrich who has him prisoner and is going to reveal the D- Day plans to the Fuhrer. This film is very well acted and the guns and weapons are mostly accurate. Sophie Marceau is good in the role of the main female who tries to keep them together after their male leader (who also happens to be her brother) is captured. The only problem I have with the film like with the Dirty Dozen is the implication that the resistance fighters were forced into it because they were prisoners instead of heroes who willingly signed up to liberate their nation. This is a very beautiful film and I recommend it.

    • Like 2

  4. 1 hour ago, TheCid said:

    Back to the draft topic.  Did you ever serve in the military?  If so, when and what doing?  Thanks.

    I mistyped. I meant Desmond Doss was MORAL. I was on my phone. I agree he was moral. Also no, I am not medically eligible 

    • Thanks 1

  5. 33 minutes ago, Arturo said:

    Pedophilia is against the law for good reason.  Homosexuality is no longer illegal in the U.S.  So any sexual acts between two Consenting Adults is very different, and treated very differently, by the law.

    Uhhh... Okay. I never claimed it was against the law. The law is irrelevant to the Categorical Imperative.

    • Sad 1

  6. 31 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:


    I'd also like to point out that a what-about-ism thread on Bernie Sanders registering as a conscientious objector somehow morphed into Immanuel Kant and the immorality of gay-wedding cakes. :lol:

    As far as Conscientious Objection, someone like Desmond Doss who actually helped his country as a medic could hardly be described as immoral. To me, it is only immoral if your country is in clear and urgent danger and you refuse to help at all (WWII as an example). I don't really think Sanders fell under that though.

    • Sad 1

  7. 5 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

    Why are you hopeful that it will be overturned? What will you gain by it being overturned?

    I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, but I'm just surprised that someone that has been so vocally anti-religious is also this worked up about homosexuality. Trying to lump it in with pedophilia, which includes non-consenting minors, is particularly egregious. 

    I certainly do not like the Church, especially their frequent cover up of the sexual abuse of young boys by their priests but I just do not think it is really ethical. Legal things like adoption should really be between man and woman because children need male and female role models in their lives. You are all free to support what ethical structures you choose as others are allowed to disagree as well.

    • Sad 1

  8. 3 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

    The study cited does not prove that sexuality is a choice. Here's another take on the same study:

    "The study shows that genes play a small and limited role in determining sexuality. Genetic heritability — all of the information stored in our genes and passed between generations — can only explain 8 to 25 percent of why people have same-sex relations, based on the study’s results.

    Moreover, the researchers found that sexuality is polygenic — meaning hundreds or even thousands of genes make tiny contributions to the trait. That pattern is similar to other heritable (but complex) characteristics like height or a proclivity toward trying new things. (Things like red/green colorblindness, freckles and dimples can be traced back to single genes). But polygenic traits can be strongly influenced by the environment, meaning there’s no clear winner in this “nature versus nurture” debate."

    You seem to be applying the same kind of absolutism as a number of religious fundamentalists. 

    The genetic component is not dominant though (8 to 25 percent?). Even if it were entirely genetic, it does not make it moral. Pedophiles try to rationalize what they do as being "just how my brain is wired." You could say the same of a lot of criminals that what they do is because their brains are just wired that way.

    2 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    So you support discrimination based on one's 'actions' regardless of where or when these 'actions' took place.

    To me that isn't a sound social policy;  instead the 'actions' needs to be something the business observed.   

    E.g.  a business should be allowed to refuse service to those that look and act like clowns,  but not Bozo dressed up in street-cloths.  

    You're really lost...

    7 minutes ago, TheCid said:

    So, I can believe in same sex marriages and the government can "believe" in it and protecting the rights of same sex couples as equal treatment under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.  Thank you.

    And people have the right to oppose it and hopefully it will be overturned one day.

  9. 3 minutes ago, Princess of Tap said:

    Aren't some people born with a predisposition to homosexuality?

    Haven't there been scientific studies done on this?

    2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

    OK Gershwin.  How about let's use 21st Century concepts and not something from the dark or near dark ages.

    You are free to believe in what you see true as is everyone else.

  10. 1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    I agree that private businesses should be able to refuse to provide service for religious reasons and that the government should NOT compel them to perform said service (e.g. fine them as a way to get them to conform).

    You're the one that introduce the concept of 'actions';   so I ask again;  what 'actions' are a gay couple doing that would warrant a baker to refuse service?       None that I can see other than just being gay.  So in this regard how is that different than racial discrimination?    (discrimination based solely on who someone is and NOT based on their conduct\actions).

    I guess one would say asking the baker to put two men on top of the cake or two men's names is an 'action' the gay couple is forcing on the baker.    I find that a stretch,  but hey, I'm not a baker!   

    Okay, race is something you are BORN into and it is not an action. "Being White" or "being Asian" are NOT actions. Homosex IS an action just as much as master bation is and both actions fly in the face of Deontology. The ACT of being with the same gender is an action that violates the Categorical Imperative and as such, all people of good morals can not condone it. 

  11. 1 minute ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    What actions are these deviants doing that would warrant a business refusing service?   

    In addition how are these actions different than the actions of people you believe are non deviants?

    The classic example is overt signs of affection (e.g. making out):   most business that will ask customers to leave for these actions do so regardless of the gender of the couples.    I.e.   they apply their conduct-standard equally.

    So again,  what specific actions are deviants doing,  that are different than non-deviant actios, that would warrant a business to refuse service?



    The entire debate was about marriage specifically and asking the bakers to make cakes for the wedding. If you consider that a deviant idea and mockery of marriage and sexual union then it stands to reason that you would refuse service. 

  12. 3 hours ago, TheCid said:

    So, you are saying that per American laws and standards all LGBTQ people are "sex offenders or a pervert or a deviant?".

    From a Deontological perspective, yes, that is the case. It is literally Deviancy by definition.

    3 hours ago, TheCid said:

    So, using your rationale any business owner could refuse service to blacks, Hispanics, Jews, ad infinitum if they believed them to be inferior.  Don't disagree because that IS the logical extension of your argument.

    No, of course not. An ACTION is not the same as racial background. An action is something you physically choose to do while a race is something born into. They choose to violate the Categorical Imperative and it is on their ACTIONS that moral judgment fall.


    Congress set for showdown with Trump over Kurds

    President Trump is barreling toward a showdown with Congress over his decision to pull back U.S. troops in northern Syria despite widespread opposition. 

    The announcement, which caught leadership and traditional GOP allies flatfooted, sparked a wave of condemnation, with Republicans calling it a “disaster in the making,” a “catastrophic mistake” and a “terrible decision.”    

    Lawmakers are already weighing how to respond to Trump’s decision, setting the stage for a high-profile clash with Trump as soon as Congress returns from a two-week break on Monday. 

    “Congress must and will act to limit the catastrophic impact of this decision,” said Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), a member of House GOP leadership, adding that Trump’s decision was having “sickening and predictable consequences.” 

    Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) warned that unless Turkey changes its behavior “everything is on the table,” including “suspending arms sales, to suspending economic aid to even considering their status in NATO.” 

    Lawmakers, scattered across the country for a two-week break, are having behind-the-scenes talks about potential legislative action and publicly throwing out a myriad of ideas ranging from a resolution opposing Trump’s actions to sanctions against Turkey to inserting language into a mammoth defense policy bill. 

    “Multiple committees are looking at possible legislative efforts to put the House on record against the President’s outrageous decision,” a House Democratic leadership aide told The Hill.

    Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y) separately predicted that “Congress will take some form of action” given the “broad condemnation” sparked by Trump’s decision. 


    • Thanks 1

  14. 55 minutes ago, hamradio said:

    I'm tired of debating this,  the media spinned this to make it appear Trump betrayed ALL the Kurdish people. Even the Republicans and Nip got blindsided by the story. 

    The story is civilians are dying as a result of Trump's policies. The "terrorism" claim is just an excuse by Erdogan to kill all the Kurdish civilians.

    As Turkish planes pounded Kurdish positions from the air and with artillery, CNN reporters on the ground in Syria reported smoke billowing from several large explosions as desperate civilians -- women, children and men -- fled the area on foot, some pushing others in wheelchairs, many crammed into the back of pickup trucks.
    With humanitarian groups reporting the bombardment could displace as many as 300,000 people, Erdogan's top adviser told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Trump knew in advance about the scope of the Turkish attack.
    • Thanks 2
    • Sad 1

  15. 2 hours ago, TheCid said:

    The issue is when is discrimination wrong in the eyes of the government as representatives of the public at large.  Also, the Federal courts have long determined that when you become a public business, you accept certain responsibilities for fair treatment of the public.  The governments and courts determine what is fair treatment, not the business owner.

    If they do not wish to serve certain members of the public, don't go into business.  It is that simple.

    Well the government has made a very sorry judgment as is often the case. I don't see how it would be unfair to turn away a sex offender or a pervert or any deviant.

  16. 22 minutes ago, TheCid said:

    Not relevant.  We are talking about the law in the U.S. and how it is interpreted.  Governments and Courts accept the teachings of religions.

    You miss the point.  If you can discriminate for one thing, then you can discriminate for more things.

    Stores CAN discriminate for some things and not others already as it is. 

    17 minutes ago, TheCid said:

    Does this have a point?  He died in 1804 when slavery was still legal in much of the world.  Not to mention no rights for women, non-whites, the non-wealthy, etc.

    And he's famous for being against slavery and mistreatment of women. That's *literally* the entire point of his works. Just agree to disagree on this. What you see as normal others do not. If people think marriage should be a certain way then why would they want to cater to those who do not?


    Republican anger grows as Trump disavows Kurds by saying they didn't help during WWII

    Washington (CNN)Republicans savaged President Donald Trump Wednesday for allowing Turkey to attack US allies in Syria as the President offered varying reasons for giving Turkey the green light, including the fact that Kurds did not fight alongside the US in World War II.

    Turkey launched its military operation to flush Kurds allied with the US out of northeastern Syria sparking outrage in Congress, creating rare bipartisan unity about the risks to the Kurds, US national security interests, regional stability and the fight against ISIS.
    Trump apparently gave Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan the go-ahead on Sunday to proceed with his long-planned move against Kurdish fighters who make up part of the Syrian Defense Forces and who lost thousands of men fighting with the US against ISIS.
    As Turkish planes pounded Kurdish positions from the air and with artillery, CNN reporters on the ground in Syria reported smoke billowing from several large explosions as desperate civilians -- women, children and men -- fled the area on foot, some pushing others in wheelchairs, many crammed into the back of pickup trucks.
    With humanitarian groups reporting the bombardment could displace as many as 300,000 people, Erdogan's top adviser told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that Trump knew in advance about the scope of the Turkish attack.
    "President Trump and President Erdogan have reached an understanding over precisely what this operation is," Gulnur Aybet said from Ankara on Wednesday. "He knows what the scope of this operation is."
    The news trickling out of Syria fed increasing Republican anger, as lawmakers, former officials and analysts reacted throughout the day, and the US military stayed conspicuously silent.
    • Thanks 2
    • Sad 3

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:


Having problems?

Contact Us