|
Post by gailkate on Mar 15, 2007 18:52:08 GMT -5
The cat is adorable. Is that an apology? A number of Republican senators have expressed concern about the Gonzales mess. The emails are there, the news coverage is there, we've been over this ground: you're the one skipping every point we raise. Norm Coleman, as pro-Bush as they come, has said Gonzales has a lot of explaining to do. NH's Sununu is raising doubts, even John Cornyn teamed up with Leahy to form a cmte to look into it. Gonzales tried to blame a deputy and accepted the guy's resignation. You, too, can google. Here's just one news story seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/307388_prosecutors14.html. There are dozens, probably hundreds, all written by pinko lefties who've been rounding up Repubs and slipping them mickeys so they'll say this doesn't look kosher. It seems as if the far right invariably hollers "look at what that other guy did" even if it means dredging up ancient history.
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Mar 15, 2007 20:49:26 GMT -5
//E:
1) Mayhaps ya' could 'splain how Clinton fired 93 out of 94 Prosecutors for purely political reasons and not a single news service wants to address it. Not the process or the methods, but the justification of the firings.//
1) What has Gonzales and his department in so much trouble is not the firings themselves; it's the attempt to mislead Congress about the REASON for the firings. The Justice Department issued a flat statement that Rove was never involved in discussions of the firings. This was wrong. Gonzales said the firings were for "performance" issues. This was a lie. That's WHY Gonzo will be gone soon.
//2. ) Could Ann C. have been refering to the Edwards bloggers that were sent to rehab for using derogatory, insulting and inflamatory language?//
An actor on the tv show "Grey's Anatomy" used the word "f-a-g-g-o-t" to describe a fellow actor; he apologized and was sent to rehab. That's the cultural reference Coulter was using to say, in essence: "I would call Edwards a f-a-g-g-o-t but I don't want to go to rehab." A bit desperate, but nice try.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 15, 2007 23:09:58 GMT -5
//E: 1) Mayhaps ya' could 'splain how Clinton fired 93 out of 94 Prosecutors for purely political reasons and not a single news service wants to address it. Not the process or the methods, but the justification of the firings.// 1) What has Gonzales and his department in so much trouble is not the firings themselves; it's the attempt to mislead Congress about the REASON for the firings. The Justice Department issued a flat statement that Rove was never involved in discussions of the firings. This was wrong. Gonzales said the firings were for "performance" issues. This was a lie. That's WHY Gonzo will be gone soon. Which may happen ... or not. Either way, that is not the answer to problem I had with the assertion by J* that Democrats are superior when simple math results in a 1062.5% margin of superiority for Republicans over Democrats. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Maybe I was not in the room when the LMSM and you were installed as official interperters of jokes told by Conservatives. Maybe you guys should wear badges, carry ID or something so I know that you are the "Official Deciders of Other Peoples Thoughts and Jokes". Do you really think that Ann C. would have held back if she had really intended to call Edwards a faggot? She has never been shy about expressing her opinion in the past, but this time, in front of a "friendly crowd" she showed restraint? Whaaaat? The false outrage by your ilk over this incident, the Federal Prosecutor firings, the Plame/Wilson affair, etc. is all so tiring. Call me when there is a real problem. _E_
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Mar 15, 2007 23:16:32 GMT -5
If you hear hoofbeats, think "horses," not "zebras."
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 15, 2007 23:24:21 GMT -5
… What has Gonzales and his department in so much trouble is not the firings themselves; it's the attempt to mislead Congress about the REASON for the firings. The Justice Department issued a flat statement that Rove was never involved in discussions of the firings. This was wrong. Gonzales said the firings were for "performance" issues. This was a lie. That's WHY Gonzo will be gone soon. … So if only Gonzales had said, "We fired them for political reasons. We felt they were not doing all they could to help the Republican Party," everybody would have said, "Fine. We understand perfectly. Everybody does it. End of hearings. Go in peace Mr. Attorney General, and keep up the good work."
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 15, 2007 23:29:05 GMT -5
The false outrage by your ilk over this incident, the Federal Prosecutor firings, the Plame/Wilson affair, etc. is all so tiring. Call me when there is a real problem._E_ Excuse me, but for one who takes great umbrage over common inference when it comes to insult I think you are way out of line in thinking you can discern false outrage from the real deal and pictures of your darling grandson or your cat aren't going to help. Some people do have a sense of right and wrong and it isn't quite as partisan as yours seems to be. "Your ilk" talk, Joe, common from your fellow die hards is exactly the kind of crap talk that distinguishes conservatives from liberals. That is what respect looks like? I think you've got the wrong bumper sticker. Your party plays to people's base instincts and calls it Christian. Lord have mercy is all I can say.
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 15, 2007 23:33:57 GMT -5
So if only Gonzales had said, "We fired them for political reasons. We felt they were not doing all they could to help the Republican Party," everybody would have said, "Fine. We understand perfectly. Everybody does it. End of hearings. Go in peace Mr. Attorney General, and keep up the good work." If you listen to SnowJob, that is exactly the Catch-22 the White House is in hemming and hawing between -- it wasn't political out of one side of their mouth, it was performance and we have every right (under the Patriot Act!) to be political and hire and fire at will out of the other side. What say you to the concept that they were fired because they were not doing what the other 93 were doing, using the Justice Department to harass Democrats in order to better position the party when 2008 rolls around? When you worked for the IRS did you go after Democrats and ignore Republicans?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 15, 2007 23:48:28 GMT -5
j*, I wonder if you are a little bit confused. You quote edsfam and address your comments to me. You are apparently extremely angry. Am I the one whom you are calling dipstick or is that edsfam? Is it my sense of right and wrong or edsfam's which you are calling partisan? Why do you quote the words "your ilk" in a sentence addressed to me when edsfam is the one who used them?
And what does the sentence mean? Are you trying to make the generalization that conservatives, unlike liberals, generalize about people on the other side? Isn't calling someone "dipstick" as much "crap talk" or more so than edsfam's "your ilk?"
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 15, 2007 23:51:35 GMT -5
Yes. I meant it and it is okay to be angry sometimes especially when something as basic to civilization and democracy as the rule of law is at stake and my sincerity is questioned, but I'll take it back. I think you are both pretending to be dense rather than face the facts when it comes to what it means to call yourself a Republican when it comes to basic decency. And I'm not generalizing, I'm talking to a specific person who cries and complains for two days that no one has provided a transcript of what Ann Coulter said so therefore we must be making it up and then when it is provided does not say thank you, instead wants to pretend it didn't mean what of course it meant. That kind of gamesmanship reeks and it has come to define conservatives and you, Joe, think you are on the Love Boat with your fellows?
Only if up is down and around is under. But then again, it is. Justice. Not. Etc. Etc. Etc.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 16, 2007 7:20:54 GMT -5
Just to illustrate how false outrage and inference of insults work ... If you hear hoofbeats, think "horses," not "zebras." HOW DARE YOU CALL ME A ZEBRA!!! I AM SHOCKED THAT THIS INSULTING AND PERSONAL ATTACKING LANGUAGE IS ALLOWED TO APPEAR ON THIS FINE SITE. and so on and so on .... See how easy it is to infer an insult when there wasn't one? See the false outrage? Get over yourselves and your frail self-esteem. _E_ p.s. And what crime is Gonzales accused of committing?
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 16, 2007 7:49:37 GMT -5
Excuse me, but for one who takes great umbrage over common inference when it comes to insult I think you are way out of line in thinking you can discern false outrage from the real deal and pictures of your darling grandson or your cat aren't going to help. Some people do have a sense of right and wrong and it isn't quite as partisan as yours seems to be. "Your ilk" talk, Joe, common from your fellow die hards is exactly the kind of crap talk that distinguishes conservatives from liberals. That is what respect looks like? I think you've got the wrong bumper sticker. Your party plays to people's base instincts and calls it Christian. Lord have mercy is all I can say. I see how two face and rules are for other people works. Would you care if Ann Coulter called someone who is a Democrat a faggot? Watch her face. She knew what she said. Listen to the laugh track. The conservative audience, gathered to discuss policy preferences, got it. No one has to twist her words to make them demeaning not only of Edwards but of innocent bystanders which is what moves this beyond the pale. She should go to rehab. Back to kindergarten to start over. Group therapy, 24/7, where people sit around and call her names and then asks her how it feels and if she learned anything. As should her admirers. Google Gonzalesgate if you care about what the Attorney General did or did not do. There are hundreds of discussions and articles anyone who wants to be informed can go to. I believe you have cotton balls in your ears so I am finished talking to you. It does not mean I'm finished talking about this. I just plan to ignore you. If I could flag your posts to be blocked from my sight, I would. Maybe Gonzales will utilize his police powers and investigate himself. He could secretly arrest himself and all his friends, send them down to Gitmo to be waterboarded, stood up naked in a cold room for twenty four hours with rap music and gnarling dogs and the whole truth would come bubbling out five years later.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 16, 2007 8:18:59 GMT -5
Is calling someone a "faggot" guilty of using demeaning language? ( not that it happened )
Should everyone who uses demeaning language be sent to rehab? ( what is the criteria )
Who gets to decide when language is demeaning? ( can I demand that the Dixie Chicks or Rosie O'Donnel go to rehab because I decide they used demeaning language )
Not to sound all Orwellian and such, but you and your ilk sound a bit scary to me. First thing you know, my constitional rights to freedom of expression will be abridged.
You sure you want to go there?
_E_
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Mar 16, 2007 8:31:23 GMT -5
Excuse me, but for one who takes great umbrage over common inference when it comes to insult I think you are way out of line in thinking you can discern false outrage from the real deal and pictures of your darling grandson or your cat aren't going to help. Some people do have a sense of right and wrong and it isn't quite as partisan as yours seems to be. "Your ilk" talk, Joe, common from your fellow die hards is exactly the kind of crap talk that distinguishes conservatives from liberals. That is what respect looks like? I think you've got the wrong bumper sticker. Your party plays to people's base instincts and calls it Christian. Lord have mercy is all I can say. I see how two face and rules are for other people works. Would you care if Ann Coulter called someone who is a Democrat a faggot? Watch her face. She knew what she said. Listen to the laugh track. The conservative audience, gathered to discuss policy preferences, got it. No one has to twist her words to make them demeaning not only of Edwards but of innocent bystanders which is what moves this beyond the pale. She should go to rehab. Back to kindergarten to start over. Group therapy, 24/7, where people sit around and call her names and then asks her how it feels and if she learned anything. As should her admirers. Google Gonzalesgate if you care about what the Attorney General did or did not do. There are hundreds of discussions and articles anyone who wants to be informed can go to. I believe you have cotton balls in your ears so I am finished talking to you. It does not mean I'm finished talking about this. I just plan to ignore you. If I could flag your posts to be blocked from my sight, I would. Maybe Gonzales will utilize his police powers and investigate himself. He could secretly arrest himself and all his friends, send them down to Gitmo to be waterboarded, stood up naked in a cold room for twenty four hours with rap music and gnarling dogs and the whole truth would come bubbling out five years later. ::)Ohhh, here we go! It's the "I can't counter what you say, so I'll just ignore you and keep on with my retoric so I can't hear you above the sound of my own voice" syndrome. ~B~
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Mar 16, 2007 8:37:33 GMT -5
j*, I wonder if you are a little bit confused. You quote edsfam and address your comments to me. You are apparently extremely angry. Am I the one whom you are calling dipstick or is that edsfam? Is it my sense of right and wrong or edsfam's which you are calling partisan? Why do you quote the words "your ilk" in a sentence addressed to me when edsfam is the one who used them? And what does the sentence mean? Are you trying to make the generalization that conservatives, unlike liberals, generalize about people on the other side? Isn't calling someone "dipstick" as much "crap talk" or more so than edsfam's "your ilk?" So, what is the difference between one person calling another a "faggot", and another calling someone a "dipstick"? Seems as if it's a matter of who is doing the calling that makes it either okay, or not okay, doesn't it?? ~B~
|
|
|
Post by juliastar on Mar 16, 2007 9:26:55 GMT -5
So, what is the difference between one person calling another a "faggot", and another calling someone a "dipstick"? ~B~[/quote]
Is this a sincere inquiry?
According to Websters:
faggot -- a male homosexual, often used disparagingly. It was used that way on the playground when I was growing up. It was on the list of words my children were asked not to ever use. Vulgar people talk like that, I told them.
dipstick -- a graduated rod for indicating depth (as oil in a crankcase). Hmm. No mention of disparagement. Perhaps I meant it as a compliment. How dare anyone infer I meant insult? Dipsticks are useful. At best, they are inanimate objects, hardly vicariously insulted in an attempt to insult another, like sisterbeer was innocently insulted in Joe's attempt to insult me. Unlike slur words which hit innocent bystanders in the below the belt attempt to slime another, dipstick at its worse is in the same league as puddinghead and, Brutus, I seem to have missed your editorials objecting to his use of that term which has been going on for some time, you've had equal opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Mar 16, 2007 9:28:10 GMT -5
So, what is the difference between one person calling another a "faggot", and another calling someone a "dipstick"? Seems as if it's a matter of who is doing the calling that makes it either okay, or not okay, doesn't it?? ~B~ Is this a sincere inquiry?[/quote] Yes, actually it is. ~B~
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 16, 2007 10:03:49 GMT -5
Brutus, you can't mean that. Dipstick might be on the same level as Puddinhead - although I see a difference in directing a pejorative to one person rather than a whole group of people, as edsfam did. But neither is even in a class with faggot.
Edsfam, even Coulter isn't pretending that she didn't call Edwards a faggot. She's laughing about it and saying it's not important. You have to understand that rhetorical techniques are part of communication. Understatement, thinly veiled references, irony and "wink wink" doubles entendres (that has more nuances in French than in the translation "double meaning") all are rhetorical techniques. Coulter uses them expertly, though sarcasm is her favorite by far.
You've announced proudly that you're an engineer and implied superiority to English majors. Both have strengths, and our strength is the use of language. Awhile back you said something about words meaning exactly what they mean, which is patently muddleheaded. I thought about trying to explain connotation/denotation, multiple uses, nuances and subtle shades of meaning but it just seemed too hard. So I looked up "hard" in the online thesaurus and came up with nearly 290 separate definition entries, each with at least a few if not a couple dozen possible synonyms. Words do not have one meaning. If you're going to insist that they do and split hairs about whether Coulter called Edwards a faggot in a simple declarative sentence, then you make yourself out to be exactly the stereotypical engineer people joke about - linear, unimaginative thinkers unable to entertain more than one thought at a time. I worked with engineers for 15 years and some are like that. But not all. Which are you?
|
|
|
Post by brutus on Mar 16, 2007 10:07:55 GMT -5
Brutus, you can't mean that. Dipstick might be on the same level as Puddinhead - although I see a difference in directing a pejorative to one person rather than a whole group of people, as edsfam did. But neither is even in a class with faggot. Edsfam, even Coulter isn't pretending that she didn't call Edwards a faggot. She's laughing about it and saying it's not important. You have to understand that rhetorical techniques are part of communication. Understatement, thinly veiled references, irony and "wink wink" doubles entendres (that has more nuances in French than in the translation "double meaning") all are rhetorical techniques. Coulter uses them expertly, though sarcasm is her favorite by far. You've announced proudly that you're an engineer and implied superiority to English majors. Both have strengths, and our strength is the use of language. Awhile back you said something about words meaning exactly what they mean, which is patently muddleheaded. I thought about trying to explain connotation/denotation, multiple uses, nuances and subtle shades of meaning but it just seemed too hard. So I looked up "hard" in the online thesaurus and came up with nearly 290 separate definition entries, each with at least a few if not a couple dozen possible synonyms. Words do not have one meaning. If you're going to insist that they do and split hairs about whether Coulter called Edwards a faggot in a simple declarative sentence, then you make yourself out to be exactly the stereotypical engineer people joke about - linear, unimaginative thinkers unable to entertain more than one thought at a time. I worked with engineers for 15 years and some are like that. But not all. Which are you? Yes, actually, I did mean it. Name-calling is name-calling no matter what words are used. Sometimes we homogenize our lingo to be less offensive, hence such "endearing" terms as "Puddinhead' or "Muddleheaded", because we know that the words we'd prefer wouldn't go over well with the company we're in at the time. Signed, Your Muddle-headed Puddin' Head ~B~
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 16, 2007 10:44:55 GMT -5
from Gailkate: "I thought about trying to explain connotation/denotation, multiple uses, nuances and subtle shades of meaning but it just seemed too hard. "
Yet here we are with a small group of people defining, judging and sentencing others for there words on one hand and on the other saying that devining explicit meaning from those words is not possible.
Maybe it would help me ( and Brutus ) out if you could explain what makes Ann C.s use of the word faggot offensive to you ( or J* ).
It can't be the word itself ... because it is not offensive if the Daily Kos uses it. It can't be the grammer ... because the sentence seems grammatically correct. It can't be the supposed target ... Edwards has not complained, as far as I know. It can't be "faggots" as a group ... because I have not heard of any group identifing it self as "faggots" express disatisfaction with being associated with Edwards.
Help me out here. Why are you offended?
_E_
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 16, 2007 11:47:54 GMT -5
From Julia*: "Google Gonzalesgate if you care about what the Attorney General did or did not do. There are hundreds of discussions and articles anyone who wants to be informed can go to. "
I did Google and saw a ton of blogs so I immediately dismissed them as insignificant. They are just bloggers with no proven integrity or standing.
So I dug deeper in news stories. I found a lot more "crap-talk" from talking heads and self-important pundits about how this is an abuse of power and it was all political. No substance there, because the Federal Attorneys can be fired at any time with no reason required.
So I am still at a loss as to exactly what crime has been committed that would lead to charges of .... I don't know what.
This could be sorta like when PTCaffey declared Rove was guilty of "outing" V.Plame and should be "frog marched" out of the White House. Whoops ... wrong guy. Whoops ... no crime.
_E_
p.s. My grandson "Bryson" ( whom I call "Squirt" )and My Lovely Wife's cat "Twixie" ( which I call "Puddin'head" ) are purely for entertainment purposes and serve only to that end. No wagering, please.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 16, 2007 14:35:58 GMT -5
I'm wary of blogs, too, but the articles I've cited have not been from blogs. I know that many people don't read posts thoroughly before launching into a rebuttal, but I can only rely on their willingness to read with care.
We have too many arguments going here. I'd like to point out that "muddleheaded" was a gentle term, impl;ying confusion; I chose to use a word that wasn't scornful like, say, "ignorant, pigheaded, imbecilic, witless," etc.
The word faggot in this country is an anti-gay slur. It's the kind of ugly word that leads to hate crimes like the beating torture of Matthew Shepherd that left him for dead, chained to a fence. Medical help came too late and he died. Jesse Leavenworth: John Edwards is a bundle of sticksBy Jesse Leavenworth, Hartford Courant Published: March 13, 2007 Conservative pundit Ann Coulter says she labeled former U.S. Sen. John Edwards a "faggot" not to slur gay people, but only as a "schoolyard taunt" against the Democratic presidential candidate. Picture Ann as an eighth-grader -- taller, blonder and meaner than the other girls -- and here comes the new kid, John, neatly pressed and well-coifed, striding down the hall to an honors class or student council meeting. Ann tosses her hair. "What a faggot!" she sneers. The word has morphed from a centuries-old term for "bundle of sticks" to a derogatory term for a woman and finally to a pejorative for a gay man. School kids also have used "faggot" for decades, not only to sting effeminate boys, but also as a wide-ranging synonym for "weakling" or "chicken."Coulter said that's the sense she had in mind when she ranked on Edwards recently. "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' " she said at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference. Not only gay rights advocates, but also fellow conservatives immediately slammed the comment as juvenile and stupid."There are enough spewers of mindless filth, vulgarity and hatred on TV, at the movies and in the public schools," conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wrote on her website, www.michellemalkin.com. "We don't expect our children to be exposed to that garbage at the nation's pre-eminent conservative gathering."Coulter later said she was joking, playing off the troubles of TV actor Isaiah Washington, who apologized and sought counseling after calling a fellow actor a "faggot."It isn't offensive to gays," Coulter said on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" show. "It has nothing to do with gays, it's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you are telling me John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person." While some gay people say this f-word is much more powerful and hurtful than the four-letter expletive, others call it a good-humored insiders' greeting, akin to black people using the n-word with each other. "I think it's funny when fellow gays sarcastically say, 'Hey faggot' to me," Time's John Cloud wrote in www.time.com recently.
"But it wouldn't be so funny if, say, my heterosexual boss said it. Sorry, straight people: You don't get to say 'faggot.' "Others say the word is unacceptable on any tongue. "It is ludicrous to try to divorce the power of this word from its roots as a derogatory term referring to gay men," Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Network, wrote on the organization's website in response to Coulter's explanation."The use of the word 'faggot' should always be avoided," Brad Luna, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, wrote in an e-mail. "It is a term synonymous with hate and fuels violence against tens of thousands of gay kids, whose personal safety is too often threatened, when they are called 'faggot' in school hallways and playgrounds." How did a word that originally meant "bundle of sticks" evolve to such infamy? Etymologists say the modern use of "faggot" likely derived from the late-16th-century English term for a shrewish woman. "The sense probably comes from the idea of a faggot being a burden or baggage (not unlike the modern ball and chain)," Dave Wilton wrote on the website www.wordorigins.org. "The derogatory term for a gay man comes from this sense meaning a woman. In this way it parallels other slang terms like 'queen' and 'fairy,' words connoting feminine qualities and applied to gay men. This application to gay men is relatively recent and American in origin, not appearing until the 20th century."And so, a final question: Since some people see Coulter as a toxic harpy in the old sense of the f-word, does that mean they can call her a faggot? Thinking about calling Coulter a faggot instantly reveals the absurdity of quibbling about this word. It's aimed at gay men, and we all know it.
|
|
|
Post by edsfam on Mar 16, 2007 14:53:17 GMT -5
Gailkate: Thanks but not an answer. For you and you alone, in this instance particular case only, what makes the use of the word "faggot" rise to the level of "offensive" given it has not risen to that level before.
As a side note, about twenty years ago a local radio guy did a bit something like this:
"The word for the day is "Faggot". Definition: a bundle of sticks or twigs. Used in a sentence: Hey, lets get together tonight and throw a couple of faggots in the fireplace."
BTW: He is still on the air, doing stupid humor.
_E_
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Mar 16, 2007 17:58:24 GMT -5
Both points of view have been well presented, and we have learned there are certain words that are acceptable to some and unacceptable to others. We don't have to be walking on eggshells in fear that we might offend someone, but let's let our mutual respect for each other guide our language. In other words, please, let's move on. BUT, before we do that, I just HAVE to try an experiment (and it might even offend someone - I don't know - please forgive me). So, indulge me here as I censor a word and replace it with another(s). I have no idea how this will turn out. OK. Here goes. Go back and read all the posts after Ann Coulter was brought into the thread.
|
|
|
Post by booklady on Mar 16, 2007 18:04:00 GMT -5
Trusty, now you make me wish I hadn't stopped reading this thread some time ago. My curiosity is up.
Edit: not anymore. Back out I go.
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Mar 16, 2007 18:09:59 GMT -5
BUT, before we do that, I just HAVE to try an experiment I'll say it before anybody: OK. It IS childish, huh? I'll leave the word "censored" 24 hours (and hope to remember to restore it after that). (Bookie, posts crossed.)
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 16, 2007 18:15:14 GMT -5
Yup, proboards has substituted a nonsense word. Fine with me. I do get to respond to Ed's post directed to me. The word under discussion is always offensive when applied to a human being rather than a bundle of sticks. If a jerk posting to the DailyKos blog uses it, that's offensive. If some cretin uses it in an ugly violent joke on a radio show, that is not just offensive, it's actionable as hate speech. If a public figure like Coulter makes such a remark, well, here's Malkin again: "There are enough spewers of mindless filth, vulgarity and hatred on TV, at the movies and in the public schools," conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wrote on her website, www.michellemalkin.com. "We don't expect our children to be exposed to that garbage at the nation's pre-eminent conservative gathering."
|
|
|
Post by Trusty on Mar 16, 2007 18:21:14 GMT -5
I think I understand both sides here. Could this sentence - whether it referred to sticks or humans - be akin to "lets get together tonight and strap some ________ to a hellicopter".
No matter how you look at it, it's could be dangerous.
(Not trying to start something here - just trying to see both sides.)
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Mar 16, 2007 18:28:31 GMT -5
Yes, the "jokes" are comparable. And unfortunately the whole discussion is now trivialized.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Mar 16, 2007 19:07:44 GMT -5
Trusty, I know it's how the system works to put the name of the member ahead of the text when we click the "quote" button. But unfortunately when you edited edsfam's post to give only the sentence that you were interested in, the system makes it look as if those are edsfam's own words, rather than words from a radio personality which he was quoting as an example. Do you think it would be a good idea to go back and cut and paste in the introductory context of the sentenced?
|
|
|
Post by ptcaffey on Mar 16, 2007 19:59:13 GMT -5
This is a serious discussion. Please do not alter what I post. If Edsfam truly believes that the term "f-a-g-g-o-t" does not rise to level of "offensive," then he is a puddin'head, only it's not pudding.
|
|