Posted on 02/24/2016 6:35:54 PM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
Can you imagine if a conservative TV host interrupted a black woman journalist, instructing her to change the way she said something that was not to his linguistic liking? The cries of racial condescension and sexism would echo through the land.
So will Chris Matthews pay a price in the liberal media for the way he treated April Ryan on this evening's Hardball? When Ryan, of American Urban Radio Networks, described Rudy Giuliani as "pro-abortion," Matthews interrupted her: "abortion rights. Pro-abortion rights . . . I don't like [Ryan's] way." The gracious Ryan actually apologized: "I'm sorry."
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Imagine what would descend on the head of a conservative who pulled something like this.
Ping to Liberal Media Criticism list.
I wonder why?
Why that condescending, didactic, supercilious, misogynistic, racist, mansplaining, pig!
((((LOL/ROTFLMAO))))
A big “like” on that one!
Oh, OK. Is that the way the AP Style Book dictates them to call it?
LOOOOOOOOOOL!
Wow...he’s looking bad.
He doesn’t have spittle in the corner of his mouth. That’s a first.
All of you need to be calm and think .
I am not a fan of Chris Matthews nor do I believe in abortion.
But contrary to the article, this is not a matter of linguistics.
There is a very important difference between pro-abortion and pro-abortion rights.
To be pro-abortion is to be encouraging or pushing abortion. Waving a sign at a demonstration, etc.
To be pro-abortion rights is to accept the idea that someone might want an abortion and could.
There is a difference in pushing an idea and passively accepting an idea or right.
I respect your point of view, but the point of this item was not whether there is a difference between the two terms, but the fact that Matthews interrupted to “correct” her. Again, imagine what would happen if a conservative tried something like that!
Folks, if you're reading this, you know what needs to happen.
If you can, please support the forum at this time. Thank you.
(2) People who are for legalized marijuana are called pro-marijuana. People who are for legalized guns are called pro-gun. Pro legalized gay marriage = pro-gay. etc. etc. You get the picture.
I respect the desire to make reasonable distinctions. I make a distinction between people who are merely pro-legalized-abortion or pro-abortion (e.g. Bernie) and a person who actively, relentlessly promotes it, an abortion fanatic, extremist, or (a little bit more PC?) an abortion enthusiast (Hillary.)
Yhey actually find the word "abortionist" offensive--- you'll notice there are podiatrists, cardiologists, ophthalmologists, etc. but no self-described "abortionists") so I'll settle for the term "baby-killer."
Let’s call it what it is: Pro-Slaughter of the Innocents.
I am not arguing the morality of it.
And you make my point.
One can be pro-gun rights and not own nor intend to own a gun. He/she does not even have to join the NRA or wve a sigh. He just feels that it is a right for those who wish to own one.
On the other hand one who is pro gun probably has at least one and more than likely has several.
Regardless of how the terms are used, there is a difference.
Chris is condescending and patronizing.
Innumerable American bishops are burning in Hell, and will burn in Hell, because people like Matthews were allowed to parade around for decades pretending to be Catholic.
Absolute nonsense.
The purpose of the phrase “abortion rights” is to beg the question of whether there ARE “abortion rights.”
A person who thinks there is a right to abortion is pro-abortion.
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.