[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
BREAKING NEWS!!11 Stand Nude Law Passed In Obamacare's Stead!!

Since it became clear that the SCOTUS's destiny is to slam Obamacare dead just because one guy, Justice Kennedy (of the Kennedys!?) has made up his mind that it's none of the Gubmint's bizzniss™ to tell people what they should buy... millions of people across America are now considering leaving their clothes at home and going about their business completely naked. A new form of activism or a fundamental change in lifestyle? You judge.

When asked BUT WHY!?, one Dick Balls of New York said, "Nobody makes me buy clothes EVAR again, you hear me? Teh ebil Gubmint will have to learn to respect our Freedoms & Liberties™! Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that we can't go out with our bare asses in the rain. And as we know, if something is not explicitly forbidden, then it's allowed!" Another nude pedestrian, Ms Sissy (who refused to disclose her surname because she's a sissy), added, "Teh Gubmintal oppreshun™ on our bodies should stop! I never wanted clothes, and nobody can legally force me to buy any! Period! Even two periods!" And she walked away, her tits bouncing fiercely in protest.


(People queueing at the traffic lights in rush hour)

This sudden turn of events hasn't bypassed members of the SCOTUS, either. Justice Ruth Ginsburg (here shown at her prime) was the first to join the Nude Side, when she removed her Robe of Justice, and now she goes to the Court sessions in the way she came to this world in the first place (i.e. hatched from the egg of a Reptilian). When asked WHY OH WHYYY!?, she explained, "We have now ruled that people cannot be told what to buy. So I can finally exercise my freedom to go in my birthday suit. Yesterday I donated all my clothes to the poor... although many of them have now opted to go out naked too, but whatever. Now that teh Gubmint can't tell people what to buy, I'm gonna spare me some cash by not buying any clothes. After all, summer is coming. And it's good for the skin".


(Justice Ginsburg, in one of her last clothed appearances in public)

Another SCOTUS member, Justice John Roberts, wearing only a butterfly necktie around his neck and still with a smoking pipe up his ass, stepped forward to support his colleague (while shocking everybody with how well hung he was), "Ruth has nailed it, dammit. Obviously, since our ruling is that as long as you don't own any clothes no Gubmint institution can compel you to buy anything you don't want, and obviously you don't want clothes, I'll damn well go to work with only this damned butterfly necktie on me, dammit. The damn second-hand clearance sales are never gunna be the same!"

"Gee, mate. Why didn't [Associate Justice] Clarence [Thomas] think of this earlier!?", a rather stout Justice, recognized as Tony Scalia, was heard saying, while giving a typical smirk.

But unlike most of the honorable Justices, some people just WON'T GET *IT*. Like Miss Bonny, TV host at the Quickly Vending Crap channel...


...In her last broadcast before closing shop, she went into hyperventilation mode, while tearing her scanty clothes in desperation. "If nobody can mandate people to buy clothes now, that's a whole new game. A game of shame!! It's a shame, people!! You've all set afoot down a slippery slope and there's no turning back now!! The whole world will be turned on its head!! Head over heels!! Ass over nose!! Black will be white, the sky will be green, cats on dogs, rain of frogs... and those tiny M&Ms turning into land mines!! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE to my business, eeehhmm, to decency??"

All pious morality advocates around the Ameri-universe™ are now at a crossroads. Freedomdom -or- Moralityty? Which is first? They'd have certainly preferred to ponder on the Egg VS Chicken conundrum instead. Why does everything have to be so complicated?

But not all businesses are going kaput. Some are actually gearing up for a boom. Like the bags business: hand-bags, shoulder-bags, knee-bags, elbow-bags, you name it. The sales have surged by 1000% in some sectors. What's more, people still seem to be fond of shoes, particularly women, since now the famous slogan "No Shirt No Shoes No Service" has been dropped down to a mere "Gimme My Fig Leaf & Leave Me Alone, Biach", much to the delight of Justice Scalia who's recalling the "good days of auld".


(Scalia, here shown in his auld days. Yep, he was always so old)

On a side note, Anthony Weiner, a prominent advocate for BIG, well-hung... ehmm, Gubmint, has tweeted yesterday, "Pants R down. Can I haz my political career back, now?"

A side effect from the ruling has been the emergence of a new grassroots movement, which, like any other Amurkkin grassroots invention, has been ganked from elsewhere (namely: Ukraine in this case) - it's the Nekkid Wimminz For Anything movement, which is ready to go to the streets in nude protest on any issue you toss at 'em.


Following this tremendous success, the SCOTUS is not planning to just stop there. The honorable Justices have hinted they'd be aiming at the issue of Forced Education now. "The big question now is", mused Justice Ruth Ginsburg while pouring some skin powder between her ass and her seat in Court, "...CAN teh Gubmint (e.g. Teachers; or soon-to-be-nude Teachers) mandate school homework!? I've *always* believed that doing homework should be optional, which stems from our constitutional right of the Pursuit of Happiness™. The Founding Fathers™ were very explicit about this, you know". After being done with the powder, she expanded on the subject a bit more, "Given our great success with un-mandating clothing, I guess it shouldn't be that hard to shoot down mandatory homework as well, right? It should've lost some ground from under its feet by now". She then went on to contemplate further, drawing parallels in her mind with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the release of Nelson Mandela from prison, while rubbing her itchy toes against the edge of the carpet and blowing some BigMac crumbs down from her bare breasts.

A sight most enjoyable for all the Freedom-loving peeps around the Ameri-universe.


(An amazing Victorian fountain right next to the Supreme Court - speaks volumes, no?)

Oh, and happy April Fools' Day, y'all!
(deleted comment)

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:18 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yahvah.livejournal.com
Sunday is the first day of the week on the Roman calendar too.
(deleted comment)

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:23 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yahvah.livejournal.com
As far as religion is concerned, we're talking about the same thing.

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:20 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com
Because Caesar wanted so.

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:24 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yahvah.livejournal.com
Did you actually listen to Ginsburg? She's a sympathizer with the individual mandate being a potential remedy to the problem of the uninsured driving up costs.

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:29 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] unnamed525.livejournal.com
I don't think you got the joke.

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:32 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yahvah.livejournal.com
No, I get the joke. It's just the broccoli talk is on point. If any government is going to compel you to buy something, it's going to be the State governments. Surely you heard Scalia mention the 10th amendment. If the United States government wants to focus on the regularity of the healthcare market, then compelling someone to enter the insurance market because they will at some point participate in the healthcare market is the wrong way to go about that business. The Feds should be focusing on more direct ways to lower healthcare costs.

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:38 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yahvah.livejournal.com
You can listen to all current oral arguments here (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx).

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:42 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yahvah.livejournal.com
It's actually kind of funny to listen to the lawyers. They're good at presenting their cases with a supreme lack assertive demeanor while a few of the judges are very supreme at shoving their verbal member down the lawyers' throats to state their interjection.

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:45 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yahvah.livejournal.com
Indeed.

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:46 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
To respond to the joke: I know of no federal offense for public nudity, so it's pretty much irrelevant. The federal/state distinction is key to the anti-Obamacare arguments.

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:47 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] yahvah.livejournal.com
Austin city code allows both men and women to go out with their upper body totally unclothed.

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 16:49 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] a-new-machine.livejournal.com
There's a small town in VT that had problems with teen fads of nudity, because the teens found out that it wasn't illegal, thanks to their hippy forebears.

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 17:15 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com
Those weird 'Murkins.

(no subject)

Date: 2/4/12 02:31 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
San Francisco allows full nudity. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/14/EDK91L3UL0.DTL

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 18:34 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com
Ok can anyone explain to me the justification for making public nudity a crime?

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 18:43 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] peamasii.livejournal.com
'cause some peepz is just too nasty to be seen in the flesh
(deleted comment)

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 21:10 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com
Its a human body, covering it up doesn't make it go away.

I just find it strange that so many people freak out over something as innocuous as a bare ass.

ETA:
Do you seriously think that a child will grow up to be a better person simply because they made it to puberty without ever seeing a penis or vagina?
Edited Date: 1/4/12 21:14 (UTC)

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 21:28 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
More likely to grow up to be an oppressed perv who can't properly contextualise their sexuality. This is why family values types keep getting busted with rent boys.

(no subject)

Date: 2/4/12 02:33 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
Since not everyone wants to see other people naked all the time, that means it's up to the parents of the children to decide for them when they are allowed to see that, which means we can't allow other people to be naked whenever they want to be everywhere. Yes, it's a social construct, but you have to have some social agreements in order to have a society.

(no subject)

Date: 2/4/12 03:08 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
It's a social construct, and therefore necessarily lies on a continuum. Our society wants these people to put on some bathers at least; Afghani society asks for a bit more. As such, it's something that's open to discussion, and whilst I'm not saying you're wrong, I think you need a bit more of an answer than "it just is, and we need it because."

I'd be interested to see some arguments, because whilst I agree with you, I really can't support my stance with anything more than "I think it's icky". Here's a thought experiment, see if you can come up with a justification for being against public nudity that can't be used to justify the Afghani point of view.

(no subject)

Date: 2/4/12 06:14 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] meus-ovatio.livejournal.com
I don't see how morality comes into it really. It's just custom, and people tend to gravitate towards custom, and if the "social consensus" is a culmination of a millions of individuals deciding to shun public nudists, well then oh well, I guess that's "the way it is". It's not like anyone has to like it either.

(no subject)

Date: 3/4/12 01:17 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
OK, so don't bring morality into it; I didn't.

So am I correct in thinking that no one has a better answer than "just cos"?

(no subject)

Date: 2/4/12 18:33 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
What's wrong with the Afghani point of view on it?

(no subject)

Date: 3/4/12 01:16 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
I like girls in bikinis.

(no subject)

Date: 3/4/12 02:41 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] geezer-also.livejournal.com
If you've ever had to look at a bunch of people my age nekid you'd agree that "I think it's icky" is one of the best arguments of all....just sayin'

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 19:02 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] luvdovz.livejournal.com
I learned something new today. Teh-Guvmint cannot tell you not to go topless on the street. But Teh-State can. You see, there's a distinction!

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 19:46 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] muscadinegirl.livejournal.com
But but...
That wasn't SCOTUS! You're missing the R that goes after the C!

(no subject)

Date: 1/4/12 21:47 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rimpala.livejournal.com
Nice!™ This© almost looks like an Article™ from The Onion™.

BTW™ I was wondering if Anyone Else™ can't stop thinking about Scrotum™ when They™ see the acronym SCOTUS™ If Ş̛̮̠̤͆̈̃̒a͒̅͗҉̪n̢̛͍̋̑̋ͣ̋ẗ̷̡͚͖͍̲̳͔́͒ͣ͐ͫ̔ͦ̀͘ǫ̮̬̗̳͓ͨͫ̌̃͌̕rͧ̎̏͊͛͐͋͏̼͚̞̥͝ṵ̴̴̗̞͉̫̟͇̗̑͆ͥͫ͜m̵̨̹͓̻̲͙̔ͩ͋̆̾̃́͒™̋̅̂ͨ͐͑̾̕҉̙͔̰ ever made it into the White House™ it would be Terrible Awful™ but at least the Homoerotic Jokes™ would be unending!

(no subject)

Date: 2/4/12 05:47 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] rimpala.livejournal.com
Trademark all the things!™

(no subject)

Date: 3/4/12 01:18 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] anfalicious.livejournal.com
Like November 20, 2009! (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120319/12192218160/summit-entertainment-claims-to-own-date-november-20-2009-issues-takedown-art-created-that-day.shtml)

(no subject)

Date: 2/4/12 17:58 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sophia-sadek.livejournal.com
I think it is a good idea to go out in your birther suit.

Image

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"The NATO charter clearly says that any attack on a NATO member shall be treated, by all members, as an attack against all. So that means that, if we attack Greenland, we'll be obligated to go to war against ... ourselves! Gee, that's scary. You really don't want to go to war with the United States. They're insane!"

March 2026

M T W T F S S
       1
2345 678
910 1112 1314 15
1617 1819 202122
23242526272829
3031