Republican PC police...

You dont understand, the word does not have a racist conotation to someone raised in the 50's.

Just like "black" does not have a racist conotation to me...
Total rubbish, again the attempt to excuse somebody in that position with such an excuse as this is just absolute hogwash.

My mother, even older and not in such a position, understands you don't use that word any longer as it is insensitive, somebody in the spotlight certainly understands it as well. It's total hackery to go from flattering an old man to supporting segregation on one hand, then pretending this guy just "couldn't comprehend" the insensitivity in his remarks.

It's like trying to excuse Billyboy for saying Obama should be fetching coffee.

And the "He said he was sorry immediately" is also total hogwash. He only said sorry when he got caught. That there was a change in wind pattern from the speed at which he got to a microphone to apologize speaks to the fact that he fully understands that his word usage was, at the very least, appallingly inappropriate.
 
Total rubbish, again the attempt to excuse somebody in that position with such an excuse as this is just absolute hogwash.

My mother, even older and not in such a position, understands you don't use that word any longer as it is insensitive, somebody in the spotlight certainly understands it as well. It's total hackery to go from flattering an old man to supporting segregation on one hand, then pretending this guy just "couldn't comprehend" the insensitivity in his remarks.

It's like trying to excuse Billyboy for saying Obama should be fetching coffee.

And the "He said he was sorry immediately" is also total hogwash. He only said sorry when he got caught.

Bill Clinton did not say that Obama SHOULD BE FETCHING COFFEE.... Its amaszing how the Conservatives are so good at changing words and making it stick in the populace.

How many Americans, including Sarah Palin, belive SAddam was behind the 9-11 attacks....?

How many Americans belive that Al Gore said he invented the internet?

Geesh!
 
Again when did the Republican PC police decide that talking about Racism or reconizing that it exists/existed is racist?
 
Bill Clinton did not say that Obama SHOULD BE FETCHING COFFEE.... Its amaszing how the Conservatives are so good at changing words and making it stick in the populace.

How many Americans, including Sarah Palin, belive SAddam was behind the 9-11 attacks....?

How many Americans belive that Al Gore said he invented the internet?

Geesh!
Paraphrasing is also an acceptable form of conversation, Jarod, even here.

Being deliberately obtuse, however, is not. Defending the "he would be fetching coffee" statement is as weak as saying that Reid is sooooo old he just "couldn't understand"...

Again, with Blago, Clinton, and Reid all stepping in it, I'm glad it isn't a republican putting their foot in their mouths this time.
 
Again when did the Republican PC police decide that talking about Racism or reconizing that it exists/existed is racist?
One does not wax into ancient and gross usage just to speak of racism.

Recognizing racism isn't what people are speaking about, and wasn't what Clinton was talking about.
 
Paraphrasing is also an acceptable form of conversation, Jarod, even here.

Being deliberately obtuse, however, is not. Defending the "he would be fetching coffee" statement is as weak as saying that Reid is sooooo old he just "couldn't understand"...

Again, with Blago, Clinton, and Reid all stepping in it, I'm glad it isn't a republican putting their foot in their mouths this time.

I am not defending anything, and paraphrasing is okay, changing what someone said is not inoculous.
 
I am not defending anything, and paraphrasing is okay, changing what someone said is not inoculous.
It's rubbish, everybody here knew what statement I spoke of, and you are most definitely defending.

Yesterday you agreed that somebody who showed the lack of wisdom that Harry showed should be removed from such a position, today you act as if yesterday's conversation never happened because you think you made a cute turn of phrase.
 
It's rubbish, everybody here knew what statement I spoke of, and you are most definitely defending.

Yesterday you agreed that somebody who showed the lack of wisdom that Harry showed should be removed from such a position, today you act as if yesterday's conversation never happened because you think you made a cute turn of phrase.

I still agree, and am not pretending not to... I do not agree that what they said was racist. Reid was insensative and made a huge laps in judgement and such a laps illistrates that he should no be in a leadership position.

I dislike conservatives changing the words to make it racist.

Just a few years ago he would have been fetching my coffee.

and...

Just he SHOULD be fetching my coffee.


Are two VERY different statements and you know it!
 
I still agree, and am not pretending not to... I do not agree that what they said was racist. Reid was insensative and made a huge laps in judgement and such a laps illistrates that he should no be in a leadership position.

I dislike conservatives changing the words to make it racist.

Just a few years ago he would have been fetching my coffee.

and...

Just he SHOULD be fetching my coffee.


Are two VERY different statements and you know it!
Fair enough. Change "should" to "would" in my paraphrase. It doesn't significantly change what I had to say about it. It isn't something I would have ever said, and especially wouldn't if my wife was running for the Presidency. It was stupid to say it, defending it is worthless.
 
Two generations ago my family owned people of the same ethnicity of the President.

The above statement is true and not racist.

My family should own people of the same ethnicity of the president.

THAT IS A RACIST STATEMENT
 
Two generations ago my family owned people of the same ethnicity of the President.

The above statement is true and not racist.

My family should own people of the same ethnicity of the president.

THAT IS A RACIST STATEMENT
A generation is 20 years, 40 years ago your family didn't own anybody.

1863 is not "a few years ago" and that wasn't what he was saying. Quit defending the idiocy of others.
 
A generation is 20 years, 40 years ago your family didn't own anybody.

1863 is not "a few years ago" and that wasn't what he was saying. Quit defending the idiocy of others.

I am not talking about what Clinton said now... I am talking about the difference between "did" and "should", but you already acknoledged that so its now a moot point.
 
Fair enough. Change "should" to "would" in my paraphrase. It doesn't significantly change what I had to say about it. It isn't something I would have ever said, and especially wouldn't if my wife was running for the Presidency. It was stupid to say it, defending it is worthless.

It very signifigantly changes the meaning of what you say he said.

I would have to see the statement in context, which I have not to know if it was a stupid thing to have said.

If he said, "Its amazing how Sen. Obama is a serious contender in the race for president, he would have been getting us coffee a few years ago" THat is not such a terrable thing to have said.

If he said, "Ugh, that Obama is so uppity, does he not know that just a few years ago he would have been getting us coffee" That is a terrable thing to have said.
 
Total rubbish, again the attempt to excuse somebody in that position with such an excuse as this is just absolute hogwash.

My mother, even older and not in such a position, understands you don't use that word any longer as it is insensitive, somebody in the spotlight certainly understands it as well. It's total hackery to go from flattering an old man to supporting segregation on one hand, then pretending this guy just "couldn't comprehend" the insensitivity in his remarks.

It's like trying to excuse Billyboy for saying Obama should be fetching coffee.

And the "He said he was sorry immediately" is also total hogwash. He only said sorry when he got caught. That there was a change in wind pattern from the speed at which he got to a microphone to apologize speaks to the fact that he fully understands that his word usage was, at the very least, appallingly inappropriate.


Oh Lord if only these angry Righties could gather the energy to spend one TENTH of the time they spend finding fault with every misspelled word any Liberal anywhere makes, rather than criticizing their OWN candidates for their flaws.

BUT NO...it's MUCH MORE IMPORTANT we spend the next month debating what Harry Reid MIGHT HAVE MEANT, as opposed to "conservatives" holding their own ethically challenged Senators, Congressment and Governors feet to the fire for their inability to stay true to their spouses.

You know, the women they stood in front of God with and SWORE they would honor?

You know God, right? The Guy all you holier-than-thou Righties like to shove in others faces to prove how much better you are?

Yep, it's MUCH MORE IMPORTANT that some out-of-touch old guy from the sun baked desert of Nevada said something stupid than it is that conservatives need both hands to count all the members of the "family values party" who've cheated on their wives lately.
 
It very signifigantly changes the meaning of what you say he said.

I would have to see the statement in context, which I have not to know if it was a stupid thing to have said.

If he said, "Its amazing how Sen. Obama is a serious contender in the race for president, he would have been getting us coffee a few years ago" THat is not such a terrable thing to have said.

If he said, "Ugh, that Obama is so uppity, does he not know that just a few years ago he would have been getting us coffee" That is a terrable thing to have said.
*sigh*

Again, it does not significantly change what I said about it. It was stupid to say it, especially if your wife is running for President, defending it is worthless. Even worse you use an attempt to attack the messenger, attempting to defend through distraction.

:rolleyes:
 
Oh Lord if only these angry Righties could gather the energy to spend one TENTH of the time they spend finding fault with every misspelled word any Liberal anywhere makes, rather than criticizing their OWN candidates for their flaws.

BUT NO...it's MUCH MORE IMPORTANT we spend the next month debating what Harry Reid MIGHT HAVE MEANT, as opposed to "conservatives" holding their own ethically challenged Senators, Congressment and Governors feet to the fire for their inability to stay true to their spouses.

You know, the women they stood in front of God with and SWORE they would honor?

You know God, right? The Guy all you holier-than-thou Righties like to shove in others faces to prove how much better you are?

Yep, it's MUCH MORE IMPORTANT that some out-of-touch old guy from the sun baked desert of Nevada said something stupid than it is that conservatives need both hands to count all the members of the "family values party" who've cheated on their wives lately.
Inanity, and another attempt to attack the messenger, please spend years of your time searching for one post of mine that defends the actions of idiots who cheat on their wives. It will keep you occupied searching for something that doesn't exist. It is also my wish that you spend the rest of the time searching for one post of mine that says you should believe in Jeebus. That's just rich. You picked the wrong target here.

However, it didn't take me long to find some hypocritical post of yours using more than one fallacy in order to attempt to defend somebody from your party.
 
the funny part is that you attribute that to conservatives.....we all know the true source of "pc".......

You are brainwashed into thinking its only Democrats, but this example illistrates that the source of PC is any polititian, r or d who chooses to try to make political points out of unfortunant statements.
 
Back
Top