| Mar 27, 2007 @ 7:58 PM |
A Really Short Question:
|
|
MarysPlace
Posts: 2,930
|
Why is it OK to call Bush Hitler but not OK to call Edwards a faggot?
a) Because Edwards isn't gay
b) Because Bush is Hitler
c) Because you're insulting gays by saying that Edwards is one of them
d) Because it's better to be a Nazi than gay
Gee, none of these make sense. I still can't figure it out...
|
|
  |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 8:16 PM |
A Really Short Question: |
|
spongebob777
Posts: 7,904
|
It's a simple double standard Mary. For one it's a free speech issue but for another it's hate speech. To further complicate matters, one person can use the hate speech and it will be free speech. For another to say the exact thing is hate speech.
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 8:39 PM |
A Really Short Question:
|
|
MarysPlace
Posts: 2,930
|
Double standard? Are you sure? 
*pssst*
Note the libs ain't touching this one.
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 8:41 PM |
A Really Short Question: |
|
Laidback742
Posts: 3,379
|
I think it goes beyond a double standard .... some people are just going to complain, protest and bitch about it a lot louder than others.
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 8:44 PM |
A Really Short Question:
|
|
Gone_Feral
Posts: 194
|
I think it's okay to call that faggot a faggot. 
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 8:47 PM |
A Really Short Question: |
|
spongebob777
Posts: 7,904
|
some people are just going to complain, protest and bitch about it a lot louder than others.
Dead on. Kinda like one president firing all the federal attorneys with barely a peep from the opposition and another president fires a few and the opposition starts foaming at the mouth.
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 9:08 PM |
A Really Short Question:
|
|
MarysPlace
Posts: 2,930
|
Hmmm... Still not a word from our resident libs.
I don't understand... Why is it that they don't like questions about their hypocrisy? Is it because if they try to answer it they risk writing something profoundly stupid? But we know it's gonna be stupid so there's nothing to fear...
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 9:17 PM |
A Really Short Question: |
|
sealacamp
Posts: 3,130
|
Let's examine the word faggot before we apply it to something outside of its actual context. A faggot was/is a red hot coal either in the fire or pulled from the fire and like the word gay has been convoluted to apply to a homosexual. Those that choose to have their identity revolve around their sexual preferance have disgarded their humanity in leu of their sexual preferences. So the word faggot would apply since they are on fire with their sexual lust but gay would not apply as most of those people are not nearly as "happy" as they pretend to be. The most appropriate word is one that they dislike as much as faggot and that would be homosexual. Technically they are human first and formost yet they have chosen to be identified by their sexual orientation therefore they are homosexual. It is sad to see the English language perverted as it has been in the past few years in the name of political correctness, which it is neither. A similar perversion is to equate Mr. Bush with Mr. Hitler. They are like day and night. Only those of the perverse mindset can justify such outlandish assessments.
S
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 10:16 PM |
A Really Short Question:
|
|
uab_5
Posts: 2,371
|
Bush is not Hitler nor is John Edwards a faggot no matter how you peel the bannana. 
Both forms of speech, be it ignorant, are acceptable under the First Amendment.
Bush is more akin to LBJ  , and Edwards is an insentitive clod hopper for not dropping out of the POTUSA race to be with his dying wife.
Both are jokes and shouldn't be Superintendant of Waste Disposal much less POTUSA, be it I've actually voted for one of them once.
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 10:19 PM |
A Really Short Question: |
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 10,079
|
Bush shouldn't be called Hitler. He's nothing like Hitler. No one President of the United States deserves to be compared to Hitler. I choose not to associate myself with people who are not intelligent enough to know that.
And if I could even begin to explain what that word, the "f" word, means to me or anyone I know who is gay, I would, but I really don't feel like it. To lightly throw around the word that has been shouted at members of our community as they were being assaulted or killed is despicable to me.
I've blogged about it somewhere, but I'm too tired to type it all out now.
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 10:26 PM |
A Really Short Question:
|
|
MarysPlace
Posts: 2,930
|
But the H word is thrown around even more lightly.
With all due respect to the gay community, we could maybe, possibly agree that the H word is just a tiny tad worse since... well... he killed couple million people...
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 10:30 PM |
A Really Short Question: |
|
uab_5
Posts: 2,371
|
With all due respect to the gay community, we could maybe, possibly agree that the H word is just a tiny tad worse since... well... he killed couple million people...
If that were the criteria, would comparing someone to Uncle Joe Stalin be even worse since he made 'dolf look like a Boy Scout?
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 10:34 PM |
A Really Short Question:
|
|
MarysPlace
Posts: 2,930
|
If that were the criteria, would comparing someone to Uncle Joe Stalin be even worse since he made 'dolf look like a Boy Scout?
Probably not cuz Visarionovich dear isn't as "popular". There's lots of people who have never even heard the name. Plus there are no clear accounts on how many millions he really killed. As far as Hitler goes, that number is much more accurate.
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 10:40 PM |
A Really Short Question: |
|
Gone_Feral
Posts: 194
|
Both forms of speech, be it ignorant, are acceptable under the First Amendment.
Actually, the First Amendment doesn't protect either. This type of speech is usually characterized as "fighting words" and doesn’t warrant First Amendment protection...or so say the courts.
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 10:59 PM |
A Really Short Question:
|
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 10,079
|
With all due respect to the gay community, we could maybe, possibly agree that the H word is just a tiny tad worse since... well... he killed couple million people...
You could make that case, but that doesn't mean that either of them should be thrown around on a whim, and I don't think I made the case that Hitler's name should be used for anyone, really.
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 11:13 PM |
A Really Short Question: |
|
uab_5
Posts: 2,371
|
Actually, the First Amendment doesn't protect either. This type of speech is usually characterized as "fighting words" and doesn’t warrant First Amendment protection...or so say the courts
So wouldn't calling some one a "liberal" be that as well. I don't know what politics is like for you Yanks, but most political races down here are won by the candidate who can make the label "liberal" stick to his/her opponent.
Most of the rednecks around couldn't even spell "liberal" much less define it.
I grew up with "liberal" being equated to "faggot", so when some one tries to call me that I get hot under the collar and ready to go to blows.
Unless the word physically threatens some one's safety, I don't have a problem with it.
This means no shouting fire in a crowded theater or threats of violence.
|
| |
|
| Mar 27, 2007 @ 11:58 PM |
A Really Short Question:
|
|
raykl
Posts: 566
|
Why is it OK to call Bush Hitler but not OK to call Edwards a faggot?
Honestly, the political forum was at one time a place to debate various topics with some reasonable intelligence. But in recent times, it has become a bashing thread against "faggot liberals- democratic wussies- right wing conservative nuts- etc." Thus, calling Bush a Hitler, is just another form of the above.
I have stated before, I do not believe any party is 100% right or wrong. Each action should be based on the merits or results of that action. Most actions that a President takes is generally his belief and may or may not follow party lines. As long as people believe that one party walks on water while the other wallows in mire, the bashing will continue through eternity.
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 28, 2007 @ 3:28 AM |
A Really Short Question: |
|
LipGlossQueen9
Posts: 10,079
|
Honestly, the political forum was at one time a place to debate various topics with some reasonable intelligence. But in recent times, it has become a bashing thread against "faggot liberals- democratic wussies- right wing conservative nuts- etc." Thus, calling Bush a Hitler, is just another form of the above.
You're right. That's why I'm not hanging around here much anymore. There's a difference between criticizing someone's opinion and criticizing the person who holds the opinion. Just because someone does not support the war, is for stricter gun control, and is for gay marriage, does not make them a "godless pinko". Just because someone is against gun control, against abortion, and happens to be religious, it doesn't mean they're a "right wing religious nut". I'm sick of it. It's as if people can't exchange ideas anymore without worrying about someone coming back and saying "YOU LIBERALS always do this" or "I always expect this kind of behaviour from Conservatives".
|
| |
|
| Mar 28, 2007 @ 6:45 AM |
A Really Short Question:
|
|
twotall911
Posts: 12,835
|
im glad i dont care 
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 28, 2007 @ 8:39 AM |
A Really Short Question: |
|
ToucherinSparks
Posts: 6,701
|
Probably not cuz Visarionovich dear isn't as "popular". There's lots of people who have never even heard the name. Plus there are no clear accounts on how many millions he really killed. As far as Hitler goes, that number is much more accurate.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung all modern leaders who killed millions of people, but only Hitler is well known for it, even though Stalin and Mao certainly killed more people than Hitler. Why? Because the Germans were fanatics about keeping records about everything and everyone, so it was easy to identify who they killed. The Soviets and Mao's red Chinese were much more indescriminate about murder, they really didn't care who you were, and kept no records.
Here's the best guess murder records...
Hitler = 6,000,000 +
Pol Pot = 2,000,000+
Stalin = 20,000,000 - 25,000,000
Mao Tse Tung = 10,000,000 - 50,000,000
Mao's numbers are really only guesstimates since his troops wouldn't leave a single person alive to report what happened.
|
| |
|
|
|
|