Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: J.R. on October 20, 2002, 03:46:35 AM



Title: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: J.R. on October 20, 2002, 03:46:35 AM
Why is this man not our president? He is the first non-actor to host SNL and be funny. There was a bit where he sang Streisand's greatest hits, with the rationale  'Babs has been trying to do my job for years, so I thought I'd try my hand at hers,'. He also considered running for president against a reanimated zombie Jimmy Carter in 2028.



Title: SOMETHING Extraordinaire, Anyway
Post by: Squishy on October 21, 2002, 12:48:35 AM
Yes, his penchant for racial slurs (http://www.flipside.org/vol3/mar00/00mr04c.htm) and attacking political opponents through their teenage daughters (http://www.salon.com/news/1998/06/25newsb.html) show both a fine sense of humor and exactly the sort of character a president of the USA should have.

:)

Um...wouldn't HE also have to be a reanimated zombie to run in 2028?


Title: Re: SOMETHING Extraordinaire, Anyway
Post by: J.R. on October 21, 2002, 01:07:49 AM
As opposed to a sex fiend entangled in real estate scams, illegal fundraising,  over thirty suspiscious deaths (not including Waco) and probably rape.



Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: jmc on October 21, 2002, 01:37:44 AM
I like him just because he referenced "Weekend at Bernie's" during a debate!
McCain would probably be friendliest to the Bad Movie lobby.


Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Squishy on October 21, 2002, 01:56:58 AM
"As opposed to a sex fiend entangled in real estate scams, illegal fundraising, over thirty suspiscious deaths (not including Waco) and probably rape."

Clinton? After years spent investigating him, his family, and anyone who came within twenty yards of him since he was born--including chaining up Susan McDougall like Hannibal Lecter because she wouldn't testify in the manner in which she was instructed to--a government investigation resulted in the discovery of (drum roll please) one lie about consentual sex.

"Over thirty suspicious deaths?" "Not including Waco?" "Probably rape?" Surprised you left out drug-dealing (http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/01/09/19_falwell.html), vandalizing the White House, (http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals/print.html) eating babies, and inventing AIDS. Now THAT's funny.

SO glad we got rid of that draft-dodging drunk and druggie who had extramarital sex and got George Bush Part II.

:)


Title: Re: I'm going to regret posting this...
Post by: Chadzilla on October 21, 2002, 03:13:42 PM
I don't know if he calling his captors in Vietnam gooks qualifies as a penchant for racial slurring* (do you have other examples where he has defamed ethnicity via racial slurs, the gook comment is old news) or not, perhaps McCain would have been better off just calling them a***oles, or f**kheads.  But that doesn't sound very presidential either.  Maybe jerks.  Yeah, jerks sounds presidential.

As far as the Clinton joke, I lived in SF for years and was routinely *ahem* 'treated' to a barrage of Chelsea Clinton is a dog jokes, then again we hold our elected officials to a phony higher standard of behavior, so McCain might have acted better.  Still, with all the relentless back and forth insulting, its seems cases of pots calling the kettles black.  I always liked McCain because he was a little pitbull of a politician that held on even when everybody was pelting him with dog dirt (and that tenacity can be an admirable quality, at times).

*One of the most shocking moments of racial slurring I was subjected to was when my Uncle Charles and his family came out to visit the family one summer (1978).  We lived in Alameda then, right across the bridge from Oakland, CA.  A large portion of my family comes from regions where the use of a certain racial slur (one I was raised to believe was profane, like all are) is a pedestrian one, ironically a pedestrian caused a Memorable Moment in my childhood.  We were driving down High Street when we passed some dude walking down the street, the following dialogue exchange has been branded into my memory...

Uncle Charles (whipping his head around and pointing a finger at the guy)  "LOOK!"  He shouts  "A n****r!"

He says this to me.  My response is just to stare at my Uncle in slack jawed shock.

Uncle Charles, sensing he has stepped in a stanky faux paux - "You know, a black person."

Like I didn't know that.  My response, given slowly because of my shock at what my Uncle had said (words like that could get you a mouth cleaning via Ivory Soap, uh, maybe I should day DOVE soap), but it sounds delightfully sarcastic in my memory....

"Yeah...they live here, too."

What that illustrates about McCain and his comments, I don't know.  But a need to be objective about it (considering the context and what not) is necessary.  McCain explained that was how he referred to his captors only, and not the Vietnamese people (much like calling Nazi krauts I guess), in fact McCain was driving force in reopening contact with Vietnam.  Still a slur is a slur, and that one probably cost him a tighter Presidential race.

Like I said, I admire McCain pitbull TR style of grabbing on and shaking, no matter what the world thinks of the side you have chosen.  Would he have been a good president?  The world may never know.  Consider the alternatives.



Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Squishy on October 21, 2002, 03:43:28 PM
I was just answering JR's initial question. The slur may be old news now (like, say, a decades-old child molestation) but wasn't when McCain was destroying his own presidential bid.

I do believe McCain would make a better president than some choices. However, the citizens of our United States who have been routinely slurred with that word, and their friends and families, don't really care if he intended to limit it to a relative handful of foreigners; that he could never seem to get his head around this fact, before or afterwards, was probably more harmful to him than the use of the word itself. (At least he didn't make a habit--or a joke--of it.) We should be glad he didn't have a traumatic experience with people of other races; trying to explain away the N-word might be a tad tougher.

-------------------------------------

The Real Seymour Skinner: "You can't DO this to me!! I'm a war hero!!"
Homer: "And we salute you."
--"The Simpsons," what else?


Title: Re: One or two minor points...
Post by: Chadzilla on October 21, 2002, 04:55:49 PM
Squishy wrote:
>
> The slur may be
> old news now (like, say, a decades-old child molestation) but
> wasn't when McCain was destroying his own presidential bid.
>

I meant Old News strictly in the calender sense  and not in the emotional sense (your child molestation reference I'm not touching with a ten foot pole, or two five foot swedes - cue drum, thanks to Hector E. for the quip) because comments and events that leave emotional scars never really grow old to the victims (nasty s**t that happened to me years and years ago still stings).  I was just wondering if you had any other sources that have caught McCain with his foot in his mouth, racial slur comment wise that is, to quantify the use of the word penchant ("a strong and continue inclination") that's all.  For some, once is more than enough and I do not argue that what McCain said was wrong (it was, like I said, he would have been better off saying mother f***ers are something else less racially sensitive) but I could understand the context (in a Devil's Advocate kind of way), but does that make McCain racially insensitive or just a foot-in-mouthed doofus?  Both?

> I do believe McCain would make a better president than some
> choices. However, the citizens of our United States who have
> been routinely slurred with that word, and their friends and
> families, don't really care if he intended to limit it to a
> relative handful of foreigners; that he could never seem to
> get his head around this fact, before or afterwards, was
> probably more harmful to him than the use of the word itself.
> (At least he didn't make a habit--or a joke--of it.) We
> should be glad he didn't have a traumatic experience with
> people of other races; trying to explain away the N-word
> might be a tad tougher.
>

Like I said, a slur is a slur.  To me they're all profane (I wince more at Tarantino's "Dead N" ramble in Pulp Fiction than at all the gobs of profanity).



Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Flangepart on October 21, 2002, 05:53:04 PM
Liked the way you handled your uncle, Chadzilla. Made your point nicely, without starting a row. Good one.



Title: Politically correct blather
Post by: Dano on October 21, 2002, 10:44:02 PM
John McCain earned the right to use that word, just like the guys who shot him down earned the right to say whatever word they have (and I guarantee they have one).  It's JUST A WORD - one he picked up when his life was on the line for this country - and using it does not (contrary to the insufferable politically correct babble we are constantly subjected to by our media) necessarily mean he hates an entire group of people.  As far as I'm concerned, it is okay for John McCain - and any other Vietnam vet - to use that word in a non-hateful manner.  The difference: calling all Vietnamese gooks, or referring to a Vietnamese person today as a gook is hateful.  Telling of what "the gooks" did to him in that prison back during the war is fine, as is using it affectionately or jokingly (yes, jokingly).

My father taught me that calling a Japanese person "a Jap" was disrespectful and wrong.  But when my grand dad who waded through 300 yards of chest deep water under machinegun fire at Tarawa talked about how the Japs killed his best friend, we all had the sense know that was different.

Politically correct nonsense in the place of common sense is a cancer in our culture.  Repeat after me: IT IS JUST A WORD.  STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT NAMES WILL NEVER HURT ME.  Don't people learn that anymore?

And McCain was the funniest non-entertainer to host the show... but Janet Reno was also very very very funny when she busted through the wall and confronted Will Farrell who was portraying her.  Dole I didn't think was too funny in his appearances.



Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Squishy on October 22, 2002, 02:37:24 AM
No one's saying he can't use the word--just pointing out that it's unwise to use it in an interview when you're running for public office.

Dano, your father was absolutely correct. My father was a pilot in WWII. He used the word "Jap" on a regular basis, along with other unsavory words to describe "ethnics." When he chose--deliberately and repeatedly--to use it in front of my Japanese friends, who had absolutely nothing to do with his experiences in WWII, I lost what little respect I had left for him. He can still use his words whenever he wants, but he lost a son. I wonder if it was worth it to him.

So hold on tight to racial slurs and your right to use them, if they are more important than dignity and courtesy. Me, I'll stick with the same politically correct "nonsense" your father tried to teach you.


Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Dano on October 22, 2002, 12:08:41 PM
No one's saying he can't use the word--just pointing out that it's unwise to use it in an interview when you're running for public office.
*****  Well, I do agree with that.  I can't even fathom the effect having to watch every last word you say out loud has on people in public service.  In Washington DC a few years ago, a DC official was literally fired for using the word "n***ardly" (it means stingy or overly frugal).  On one hand it was a complete outrage that using a perfectly good word that happens to be a homophone of a slur could get anyone in hot water (imagine if whites protested the next time l Sharpton says "donkey"?).  On the other hand, the guy was a white public official in one of the most racially hypersensitive cities in the country.  n***ardly?  Come on, man.  Who uses that word anymore?  It's wrong that he was fired, but it was dumb that he said it.

He can still use his words whenever he wants, but he lost a son. I wonder if it was worth it to him.
*****  As I said, directing the word at someone today is hateful and really tells you something about a person.  My grand dad never used the word in that way and I strongly suspect he was the one who taught my dad not to either.

So hold on tight to racial slurs and your right to use them, if they are more important than dignity and courtesy. Me, I'll stick with the same politically correct "nonsense" your father tried to teach you.
*****  I think you missed my point.  My dad DID teach me about dignity and courtesy.  Quite effectively, thank you.  The pollitically correct nonsense goes beyond simple manners and targets things like words and ideas and labels them absolute evils.  "Whatever you do, DON'T say the N-word!  In fact we should edit it out of "Huck Finn" the greatest work of literature in American history (and a very anti-slavery anti-racist book for those clever enough to see the subtext)!"  As if it was the WORD that was the problem and abolishing it cures everything.  Wishful thinking on two counts - 1. that you can even abolish a word.  2. that abolishing it will end the problem.  It also fails to take into account that the world is not a simpleton's black and white universe, and McCain using the word "gook" to describe the people who starved and tortured him is not the moral equivelant of someone spraypainting "gook" on the window of a Vietnamese grocery because he's a racist idiot.



Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: J.R. on October 22, 2002, 03:30:19 PM
The reason Clintons never got caught for their corruptions was because Janet Reno was in their pocket and refused to investigate. What astounds me about Clinton lovers is that they seem to believe he is nothing short a perfect human being. The Clintons' corruptions are so massive and out in the open that it's just unbelievable (they continue with "Senator" Hillary) , but not enough people seem to care. Bush mispronounces a word, however, and he must be overthrown. Weird. Every charge I threw at Clinton is well documented.

To paraphrase George Carlin: It' not the word, it's the motivation behind the word. If I were held captive and strung up every day for five years I'd have a lot worse things to say.



Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Squishy on October 27, 2002, 06:06:01 AM
J.R.: Every charge you threw at Clinton is well-documented--as a charge--but unproven. I think your careful use of the words "entangled in," "suspicious," and "probably" way back in that message illustrate that you understand this. Yes, it is strange that "corruptions...so massive and out in the open" are not immediately pounced upon by law enforcement, isn't it? (Those "probably" rapes, for example, just vanished into thin air. Wow.) It must be the incredible, Godlike-yet-satanic power that the Clintons wield, controlling the press, the government, the military ("General, ah need a missile strike on Irahq to distract ev'yone from this heah Whatwatah investigation!" "Yes, master! Right away!! I'd be delighted to help you cover it up afterwards!! No one in the entire chain of command will utter a whisper!!"), and even Jerry Falwell (who--quietly--admitted that the "Clinton Chronicles" video was baseless speculation without a shred of evidence, even though it continues to be sold). Save us from them, baby Jesus, save us!

...Or maybe it's because most of it was/is hot gas blowing out of his political enemies' facial anuses. (I did enjoy watching most of Clinton's accusers in the House and Senate be shown as complete hypocrites when it comes to infidelity; I also enjoy laughing at the hypocrisy of those who claim Clinton got a "free ride" from the press while simultaneously complaining that Bush isn't getting one now.)

Dano: I'm going to repeat this again: read each word slowly and out loud. NO ONE IS TRYING TO BAN ANYTHING. McCain just suffered for his inability to think before he spoke. He (and you) can try to rationalize it all you want, or try to divert attention by squealing "censorship," but the simple fact is this: although Jesse Helms and Dick Armey could stay in office in spite of their undisguised prejudical hatreds, they would NEVER become President. McCain may not share their vicious stupidity, but he shared, for one brief public moment, their vocabulary, and people judged him accordingly.
 
Side note: this "I didn't mean all g***s, just the ones that did me wrong" bullplop may or may not have been invented specifically as an excuse for McCain's gaffe, but it remains bullplop--just another variation of "I'm no racist, BUT..." Those who use those sort of words, in my experience, do not limit them to individuals.

We could argue this forever, but instead, why don't we try this quick test: Are the men who returned from that disastrous mission in Somolia now granted "the right" to use "the N-word" at will, if only to describe their enemies? How about those related to the victims of the D.C. snipers? Would police chief Charles Moose, after a gun battle with bank robbers, be able to stand behind a podium and call the crooks clever names based on their skin colors? Should anyone who does this get a free pass if they later claim they only meant twenty or fewer people, not an entire race/gender/whatever?

The answer is, to most of that, yes. They could do it. The have the right to say what they wish. They would, however, have to face the consequences. Because the answer to the last question is no. And they all (probably) have enough brains to understand that.

I highly recommend you both try this out in public. Stand on a street corner, or sit down in a church, or visit a school in a diverse neighborhood, and start talking about "those damn ******s" (you pick the slur, but keep it germane to the crowd surrounding you) and then declare that you only meant "those damn ******s that took a shot at me last week" and start lecturing everyone in sight about the horrors of "politically-correct nonsense." After all, you're the guys saying "racist slurs are USA-A-OK, um, in certain circumstances;" now you can demonstrate it. Good luck and God bless.

:)

Anyone notice that the tool of "racial profiling" was never discussed when the Oklahoma City bombing was connected to a white guy? ...How about that. Guess they just forgot to bring it up.


Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Squishy on October 27, 2002, 06:13:45 AM
Quickie corrections: MOST of the charges against Clinton are unproven. He DOES like to screw around. That's actually legal, but it IS a judgment against his character--and those of his accusers who turned out to also have their pants around their ankles a lot. Also, it's spelled "Somalia," not "Somolia." (You know, "Black Hawk Down.")


Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: peter johnson on October 27, 2002, 05:23:45 PM
Gee whiz, people --
After wading through all the partisan sniping here, I think everyone managed to lose sight of J.R.'s original point, which was only that McCain was funny on Saturday Night Live.  He was, and, as J.R. says, this is a rarity for your non-showbiz types.
peter johnson


Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Dano on October 28, 2002, 05:34:49 PM
After wading through all the partisan sniping here, I think everyone managed to lose sight of J.R.'s original point, which was only that McCain was funny on Saturday Night Live. He was, and, as J.R. says, this is a rarity for your non-showbiz types.
*****  Correct!  Although you might consider athletes "showbiz" types (I don't), Derek Jeter was probably the funniest non-showbiz type I've seen on SNL, but McCain is a close second.  Where I live at least - McCain's SNL was partially interrupted because unfortunately the sniper had struck again.

Sifting through Squishy's lengthy attempt to twist JR and I into some kind of racists and de-emphasize our actual arguments (omitting the Clinton stuff for me, you're on your own with that JR), it was gratifying to see him clarify his classification of McCain as a guy "with a penchant for racial slurs" by admitting that he clearly understands McCain does not share the "vicious stupidity" of real racists simply because he used a WORD (not an endorsement of his slanted assessments of other politicians).  A passing acknowledgement that the world isn't a black and white simpleton's paradise where words are the problem.  That's really all I wanted to hear.

: )



Title: Somalia
Post by: Dano on October 29, 2002, 03:03:49 PM
The guys in Task Force Ranger called the Somalis "skinnies," not "n****rs."  If I heard some random well-fed American or European referring to Somalis in general as "skinnies," I'd think it a rather insensitive and offensive thing to say given the famine in that country.  If I heard one of the rangers who was in that operation talking about how "the skinnies" had used women holding children as human shields during the engagement, I would understand both the universal culture of men at war and the pain and anguish behind that word.  You really just can't see the difference between those two uses of the same word can you?

Funny thing is that it isn't even racial.  Talk to the guys who faced 120 tank divisions in Western Europe during the Cold War and you'll hear words like russkie, and commie.  Talk to the veterans of World War I & II Europe and you'll hear kraut, hun, squarehead, and fritz.  In America we had rebs and secesh against yanks and bluebellies.  And before that (not to "burn crosses" in your yard or anything) we had torries, redcoats and lobsterbacks.  All white faces, Squish.

Words can carry any number of emotions or meanings.  I've seen white kids call their black friends "n****r" and mean it in a positive way and the black kids took it that way.  Black folks call each other that all the time.  I've even been called that by a black co-worker (who meant it in a friendly way).  Of course it's all in the context and the only contexts you are willing to accept are negative ones.  They're just words.

I'm sorry, I mean they're just w***s.

: )



Title: Re: Somalia
Post by: J.R. on October 29, 2002, 06:36:56 PM
The worst SNL hosts are most certainly athletes. Nancy Kerrigan was probably the worst host ever.



Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Squishy on October 31, 2002, 07:53:32 AM
Dano, you're still trying to rewrite my arguments to suit you.

Me: "Are the men who returned from that disastrous mission in Somalia now granted "the right" to use "the N-word" at will, if only to describe their enemies?"

You: "The guys in Task Force Ranger called the Somalis "skinnies," not "n*****s." (Editing mine. Sorry if that offends you.)

Just answer my questions--don't change them. Don't try to confuse the use of the N-word in "Huck Finn" or by an African-American person with its use by a real live Klansman, or by a politican who may or may not understand the word's impact. My God, if I have to explain the difference to you, you need professional help.

Go ahead, try my little test in public. Or, if you're afraid to, just go back and answer my questions--don't change them.

You can't...can you?

:)

Actually, your spirited defense of the use of racial slurs has already answered them; I'm just giving you an opportunity to exercise your "wiggle room" and change that answer. But it you're comfortable with your original answer, by all means stick with it.

Here's my final word here: McCain apologized profusely to the Clintons for his ignorant attack on Chelsea. I don't know if he ever apologized to Janet Reno. I DO know he made a million furious excuses for his use of a word that offended a huge number of people, who, through personal experience, associate the word with abuse and hatred and murder--but if he ever apologized for it, he did it very, very quietly. McCain may not be a racist on the grade of a Grand Wizard, but he still has--by his own admission, mind you--a penchant for racial slurs. If the wise man learns from other people's mistakes, you might want to try to learn from his--and their consequences.

Click the"racial slurs" link in my first message up top. It's not a news item; it's an opinion by an Asian-American woman. Read it. Learn.


Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Dano on October 31, 2002, 06:41:47 PM
Go ahead, try my little test in public. Or, if you're afraid to, just go back and answer my questions--don't change them.
*****  Anyone who has read what I wrote knows perfectly well that I wouldn't use any word that I thought would hurt someone like that.  You're being silly on that score, trying to make me look like something I'm not.  But whatever - I cheerfully concede that words (and yes, probably that word more than any other in our language) CAN hurt very very much under certain circumstances.  Calling a fat person a "lard ass" is also hurtful.  I wouldn't call a fat person that.  Should we start saying "the L-word"?  Or L*** A**?  Nonsense.

As for Somalia, you insinuated that the rangers used the "the N-word" to refer to Somalis during the conflict and I corrected you.  If you had ever talked to anyone who was there, or read the book (or even seen the movie, I believe), you would have been familiar with the term skinny.  I don't see how I was rewriting anything by correcting your mistake.

You can play moral nanny of the message board all you want.  Your insinuation that McCain is a racist was wrong and I called you on it.  What he said about Chelsea was frankly a rotten thing to say - I'm with you, shame on him.  Glad to hear he apologized to Bill and Hill, but he should have apologized to HER.  Still, I don't see how speaking his mind, even if it gets him in trouble, makes him a bad candidate for president as you suggested.  As an American, I frankly have had enough of the deceitful type of politician who would make sure never to use any offensive language in public and then quietly make sure that - oh, for instance - no black agents were allowed on his secret service detail.  That p**ses me off a lot more than a Vietnam vet who uses the word "gook" in reference to the men who tortured him (but who doesn't hold anything against the Vietnamese people of today) and makes some mean comments about a young woman.



Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Squishy on November 01, 2002, 03:39:44 AM
"As for Somalia, you insinuated that the rangers used the "the N-word" to refer to Somalis during the conflict and I corrected you."

That's a steaming pile of crap--and you know it. Here, wanna read it again?

Me: "Are the men who returned from that disastrous mission in Somalia now granted "the right" to use "the N-word" at will, if only to describe their enemies?"

Never said they did--I just applied your (*snicker*) "logic" to a different potential situation. I even pointed out that they DON'T do that--because (unlike McCain) they have more sense than to do so. But you ignored that, because it didn't fit your excuse--much like you hang onto that "McCain only hates specific g***s, which is why he uses such a broad slur to describe them" nonsense.)

We've also been over that "Gore versus Blacks" baloney before, too; it's bull, and I'll be glad to show you once again. Face it: once again, your "confrontational nature" (and probably a sizable enema of braindead talk radio) made you decide to teach "The Liberal" a lesson (or "correct" me or "call me on it")--and you dug yourself right into another hole. With Quaylelike tenacity, you dug yourself in deeper with every sentence.

And once again, you tried to lie your way out of it.

And once again, it didn't work.

Until next time!

:)


Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Dano on November 01, 2002, 05:34:21 PM
That's a steaming pile of crap--and you know it. Here, wanna read it again?

Me: "Are the men who returned from that disastrous mission in Somalia now granted "the right" to use "the N-word" at will, if only to describe their enemies?"

*****  Well, either you insinuated (I never said you said outright - you avoid doing that as much as possible) they did or you were missing my point entirely.  I was talking about the words men at war use for their enemies.  Since Task Force Ranger didn't use the horrible "N-word" to refer to the Somalis, your point there is irrelevant and misleading - as usual.  

And if you want to play the exact words game then - oh my where did I ever say anything about Gore being a racist??  I never said that.  Stop putting words into my mouth.  Hilarious Squish.  You'll snipe at anyone right of left and then scramble around using diversion tactics to distract from that one little gem of a sentence where you admitted you were wrong and McCain wasn't a racist.  Thanks for that by the way.  I never thought I'd see the day.  : )

"Racist!  Racist!"  It's as meaningless coming from the extreme left as "UnAmerican!" is coming from the extreme right.  Just a liberally-applied scare tactic used to intimidate people and stifle debate.  

Anyway, go ahead and assume that you win "again" if it helps you sleep at night.  I never expected to teach YOU anything.



Title: Gore
Post by: Dano on November 01, 2002, 06:29:20 PM
We've also been over that "Gore versus Blacks" baloney before, too; it's bull, and I'll be glad to show you once again.
*****  Please do.  I hope you spring the same technicality on me that Gore's handlers used at the time:  "The law suit is not against Gore, it is against the Secret Service.  Therefore it was the secret service that was racist in not assigning blacks to his detail."  Pretty weak excuse.  Why did the same secret service promote plenty of black agents to the more important Presidential detail if they were racist?  The only logical explanation for no blacks on Gore's detail is that it would have made the VP "uncomfortable."  Could it be that a person who never uses racial slurs might be a racist.  Nah!  The words are the problem and he never used them.

I can't believe a mind like yours -- one that with no evidence, or even a plausible motive, was able to crack the Bush-Iraq conspiracy wide open -- was taken in by that rather thin example of DC spinmeistering.  Squish-tacular.

I bow to thee oh master debator (or something like that).
: )



Title: Re: Gore
Post by: frannie on November 01, 2002, 08:42:02 PM
Dano wrote:
> *****  Please do.  I hope you spring the same technicality on
> me that Gore's handlers used at the time:  "The law suit is
> not against Gore, it is against the Secret Service.
> Therefore it was the secret service that was racist in not
> assigning blacks to his detail."  Pretty weak excuse.  Why
> did the same secret service promote plenty of black agents to
> the more important Presidential detail if they were racist?
> The only logical explanation for no blacks on Gore's detail
> is that it would have made the VP "uncomfortable."  Could it
> be that a person who never uses racial slurs might be a
> racist.  Nah!  The words are the problem and he never used
> them.

When did we as a nation stop thinking that someone gets a promotion based on his/her abilities.  It always seems to come down to a question of that person's color.  Isn't it possible that the secret service (which has a finite number of employees and various jobs other than protecting politicians) would put a person who was a better body guard on that detail instead of tracking counterfeits?  Its all a bunch of PC bulls***.


Title: Re: Gore
Post by: Dano on November 01, 2002, 08:53:05 PM
When did we as a nation stop thinking that someone gets a promotion based on his/her abilities. It always seems to come down to a question of that person's color. Isn't it possible that the secret service (which has a finite number of employees and various jobs other than protecting politicians) would put a person who was a better body guard on that detail instead of tracking counterfeits? Its all a bunch of PC bulls***.
*****  Hey, I didn't file the lawsuit.  Nevertheless, for all the security details that were mixed in terms of race, it sure was odd for Gore's crew to be all white.  I agree with the concept of "PC bulls***" (Squishy will argue with you though), but I also know discrimination does happen and should be illegal.  Was this a case of real discrimination or the left reaping the PC whirlwind it had sown?  I can't see inside Gore's heart, so I don't really know -- but either way, it's a fitting mark on his record.

I will say this, I know guys (black and white) in the secret service, and as a group, they're not normally prone to PC whining.



Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Squishy on November 02, 2002, 04:17:30 AM
Let's just apply a little real logic here: I wonder why Clinton--who has such a fantastic relationship with African-Americans--would pick a foaming-at-the-chops racist for his veep? C'mon, Frannie--let's stand back and watch as the Conspiracy Theorist Who Sniffs At Everyone Else's Conspiracy Theories goes into action like a puppy chasing his own tail! Wheee! What fun!

Perhaps my approach here has been all wrong: Dano only sees a racial slur as just another dirty word. He's a Vewy Vewy Angwy White Male--he bawls and simpers about how terrible it is that he can't use these words as He and His see fit, but you can bet he's never had fire hoses or dogs or lynch mobs turned on HIM by people who use those phrases to redefine HIM--or His loved ones--as subhuman. A recurring theme in Dano's writing is this: If it doesn't affect Me, it is not important. If it affects others--and they say so--they are whiners.

..."PC" whiners. You read "politically-correct nonsense" at lot in Dano's stuff. There was once a time when that phrase meant something--no-discipline parents, people who believe grass has a soul, hippies who believe in total one-sided disarmament--but VVAWM (AKA "Fudds") like Rush Limbaugh now use it to describe each and every thing that inconveniences them or that they simply disbelieve off-the-cuff because it "sounds Liberal." What it means now is, "socially accepted but contrary to what I want." Global warming getting you down? Dismiss it as "PC nonsense," and (for you) it ceases to exist! Racism? Psh! Pollution? Ozone depletion? Not there! Not there! Glass ceiling? A fabrication of Communists. Lung cancer caused by smoking? Sickness caused by Agent Orange? I think not, you silly Liberal!

It has become two-faced. Dissent against one's government is fine with a Fudd if you're talking about the "Demon-RATS," but now that things have changed, dissent is un-American. Blind trust is patriotic again. Questioning is wrong.

Dano, forget the Public Test. Try it on a more private level. You see, Dano, common insults like "lard ass" aren't automatically associated with church bombings, lynchings, or internment camps. That's the part you don't get.

Discuss this with your friend at work. If you're religious, talk it over with your church. Don't over-qualify the argument beforehand with excuses and baloney; just ask them if it's okay to call people "g***s," straight out. If you know anyone who lost family in the Holocaust, ask them if they think anti-Semetic slurs are okay, in any circumstance. Ask someone who was once told he couldn't use certain facilities because of his or her skin color how HE or SHE feels about the corresponding slurs that were thrown in their faces--back when that sort of thing was "politically correct."

Until you do so, you remain full of your own crap.


Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: J.R. on November 02, 2002, 04:36:40 AM
Wow, Squishy. You have a lot of time on your hands.



Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: Squishy on November 02, 2002, 04:38:00 AM
I type fast.


Title: Re: John McCain: Funnyman Extraordinaire
Post by: BoyScoutKevin on November 02, 2002, 03:50:22 PM
Getting back to John McCain. To understand the real John McCain, I would suggest one read his "Worth the Fighting For," which has just recently been published.
As whether he would have made a good president, it is hard to say. As he is not and probably never will be. But, having said that, looking at where the country has gone since George W. Bush has been president, he could hardly do worst one would imagine. And this is coming from someone who is a member of the opposing party.
As to why he is not president, and George W. Bush is. I have several reasons, which may or may not be true. He is too independent. He can't be as easily controlled as some people. Also, he doesn't suffer fools gladly, which has annoyed people on both sides of the aisle in the U.S. Senate.
But, having said that, what I know about him, I like. I like the fact that he seems to be one of the few people in either party, who seems to stand up for us "little people." Which is another reason he probably isn't president and never will be.
And I like the fact that his heroes are my heroes. Among which are Morris Udall, Democrat, of Arizona and the late Senator from Washington state, Henry M. Jackson, another Democrat. Enjoy!