Posted on 04/13/2007 5:26:53 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Of course, that was the latest talking point in the Clinton counter-offensive, so she can't really be held responsible. No leftist in her professional and social position could have been expected to behave truthfully or even politely in that situation.
I agree — she knew very well that it was no “attack.” It’s just another tactic liberals use when they have no logical or reasoned response (which is most of the time).
If a majority of Americans are going to be so hyper sensitive over such nonsense, to the point where even words hurt us, then we are destined for a bleak future, I fear. If Americans are so easily offended by mere words then it won’t be that hard for the terrorists to win. OK, I am oversimplifying things a little. But this incremental weakening of our nation is very disturbing, IMO.
Most of the dumb twats on TV like Sawyer are clueless when it comes to understanding the Constitution.
Semper Fi,
#16 LOL! We have the same memories of “snot-nosed brats” who tattle to the teacher....I think of that phrase every time Bill Sneider (CNN) speaks.
“Larry, how DARE you correct me when I’m wrong!”
I like Larry, but shame on him for giving this elitist snob bi+ch an interview.
You’re all missing the point that this “Journalist” doesn’t even understand the 1st Amendment!
I've had the opinion that since rap music sells so well, it isn't the words that offended Sharpton and Jessie, it was just that a person of the wrong color used them.
But, after further consideration, I do see a difference between the Imus flap and rap music. Rap music lyrics are nasty, but they are generalized at degrading all women of color. What Imus and Bernard said was aimed specifically at the women on the Rutgers basketball team, a personal "attack."
Firing is an overreaction, but I can see the difference now.
Good for Larry. A big part of the problem in this country is that the idiot masses don’t understand that the Bill of Rights, which includes the right to freedom of speech, only restricts government behavior. Individuals and private companies can limit speech any way they want. Diane should know better.
Sharper than a serpent's tooth
The sting of an unwelcome truth.
(I made that second line up myself. Pretty good, huh? ~S)
Maybe we need to resurrect the old “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”
My mom taught me that one in an effort, I am sure, to illustrate how silly it was to get upset over name calling.
We need to turn our attention to the ones who would use the “sticks and stones.”
Sawyer? Sawyer? Who’s she?
Liberals are deeply afraid of truth. It destroys their meticulously planned fantasyland in which they live.
Martha’s sister—ones the news diva and ones the homemaking diva /s
She was trying to sound thoughtful, and ended up sounding sophomoric. Elder corrected her, and she acted hurt.
Not what I would expect of a mature adult, let alone a “journalist”.
Well, that pretty much covers the spectrum. Somethin' there for everyone.
Technically, yes. But wouldn't that make it less offensive? In other words, Imus could say, "I wasn't besmirching ALL black women like the rap artists do".
But that's moot. His comments, though directed at the women on the Rutgers basketball team, were taken globally -- an offense on ALL women of color. The same as the rap artists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.