Hillary apologizes for racially insensitive joke [Archive]

Phil

7th January 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by BTox
Second apology by the left in two days - must be a record! Nice job, Hillary, joking about Gandhi working in a gas station. They showed the video clip of the "joke" on the news this morning - what a dope.

hillary apologizes (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040107/ts_afp/us_clinton_gandhi)

She should not be apologizing for racial stereotyping, but because the joke wasn't funny.

Where are our priorities, man?

Attrayant

7th January 2004, 01:50 PM

I missed the part that makes her a dope. Was it because she made a mistake, or because she apologized for it?

Phil

7th January 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by Attrayant
I missed the part that makes her a dope. Was it because she made a mistake, or because she apologized for it?
Dude, I can't stop looking at your avatar.

American

7th January 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Attrayant
I missed the part that makes her a dope. Was it because she made a mistake, or because she apologized for it?

Because she is the epitome of militant political correctness and would be the first to scream like the shrill screaming b!tch that she is if a conservative had made such a joke.

hgc

7th January 2004, 02:08 PM

OK. It hardly qualifies as a joke. More of a quip. As to funny or not, I'd have to hear the delivery. Knowing her, it probably was not funny. Comic timing is a natural trait, and she was not so blessed.

But, ahem, wtf is wrong with what she said? I assume the intended humorous idea of this remark is that Ghandi, a great and important man, arose from mundane origins, but those origins are transferred in the quip from his reality to ours. I guess Humoroligists have a technical term for what I'm trying to describe.

But, oh no! Just so happens that lots of Indians (S. Asian variety) do that in this country. Big deal. PC run amuk. She's a schmuck for apologizing, but then politics is a nutty world.

My biggest question is will fauxnews.com include this event in their regular round-up of PC abuses.

Attrayant

7th January 2004, 02:11 PM

Because she is the epitome of militant political correctness...

Pointless namecalling.

...and would be the first to scream like the shrill screaming b!tch that she is if a conservative had made such a joke.

Demonizing somebody for something you suspect they might have done, if the situation had been different. How quaint. Your posting style is as banal as ever.

BTox

7th January 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Attrayant
I missed the part that makes her a dope. Was it because she made a mistake, or because she apologized for it?

Maybe you're right, it was a brilliant political strategy. Or perhaps she's just a bigot. This isn't the first time...

Jocko

7th January 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Attrayant
I missed the part that makes her a dope. Was it because she made a mistake, or because she apologized for it?

Okay, here's a good example of how things work around here.

Rush Limbaugh gets caught doing drugs = hypocrite.
Hillary casts ethnic slurs = mistake.

Newbies please take note.

Upchurch

7th January 2004, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Jocko

Okay, here's a good example of how things work around here.

Rush Limbaugh gets caught doing drugs = hypocrite.
Hillary casts ethnic slurs = mistake.

Newbies please take note. Note further:

Rush Limbaugh gets caught doing illegal acts (doctor shopping) and doesn't own up to it = hypocrite.
Hillary Clinton makes an ethnic slur, owns up to it, and appologises = stupid, but not hypocritical.

Brown

7th January 2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by hgc
OK. It hardly qualifies as a joke. More of a quip. As to funny or not, I'd have to hear the delivery. Knowing her, it probably was not funny. Comic timing is a natural trait, and she was not so blessed.John F. Kennedy had good comic ability. So did Ronald Reagan. And Bob Dole. And Barney Frank. Even Richard Nixon, when he was in a good mood, could tell a joke with some skill.

But Hillary Clinton doesn't have that ability. Her husband doesn't have it, either. The two of them should refrain from making jokes.

I could say the same thing about others, including a few who fancy themselves as humorists.

Brown

7th January 2004, 03:25 PM

By the way, Gandhi is not above being the butt of a joke. If you want to hear some really funny Gandhi jokes, watch Robin Williams's "Live on Broadway." (It's actually a pretty good performance, and even folks who don't care much for Williams will enjoy themselves.)

NoZed Avenger

7th January 2004, 03:33 PM

Rabid right wing ideologue/zealot that I am, I think this qualifies as unthinking/not funny, but also a good example of oversensitivity on the part of those complaining.

Too many people are sitting around just -hoping- to find someone say -anything- that can be taken the wrong way and used for publicity.

Apology made; issue over. (please.)

N/A

NoZed Avenger

7th January 2004, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Brown
John F. Kennedy had good comic ability. So did Ronald Reagan. And Bob Dole. And Barney Frank. Even Richard Nixon, when he was in a good mood, could tell a joke with some skill.

/Hijack

Let me say Gerald Ford here, too -- at least for 1 clip I saw. Chevy Chase was at a dinner where Ford was speaking. Ford got up and, when passing Chase, tripped and spilled note cards for his speech everywhere. I -think- (its been a long time) that he briefly sprawled on Chase for support before reaching the podium.

Once there, he pulled out the real cards from his jacket pocket and said "Good Evening. I'm Gerald Ford. (looks at Chase) . . . And you're not."

His delivery of Chase's SNL line was good, especially given Chase's impersonations, I thought.

The Central Scrutinizer

7th January 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Attrayant
I missed the part that makes her a dope. Was it because she made a mistake, or because she apologized for it?

She is a dope because she is stupid. This whole Ghandi thing is irrelevant.

American

7th January 2004, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Attrayant

Your posting style is as banal as ever.

Yeah well you're bug ugly and I don't like anything about you or who you are and what you're doing with your sad life. I do cool stuff. You don't do anything special. So there.

Troll

7th January 2004, 05:59 PM

Lott makes a comment honoring a guy who once held views of segregation and gets people asking for his head. Lott made no comments pertaining to race or anyone other than the man being honored at the time.

Clinton makes a stereotype based joke and an apology is okay?

Two people with the same job, two different incidents, two different outcomes, so far.

KelvinG

7th January 2004, 06:35 PM

As with most things in politics, this is a classic case of overreacting.
Yah, it's kind of stupid what she said, and as other posters have pointed out, not particularly funny. But, is it really that nasty a thing to say.
What would the critics have her do? Resign her position in the Senate? Please.

UnrepentantSinner

8th January 2004, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Troll
Lott makes a comment honoring a guy who once held views of segregation and gets people asking for his head. Lott made no comments pertaining to race or anyone other than the man being honored at the time.

Clinton makes a stereotype based joke and an apology is okay?

Two people with the same job, two different incidents, two different outcomes, so far.

Oh forchistsakes. I heard this BS comparison on KneeJerk Hive Think radio yesterday morning.

Let's go ahead and not fallaciously equate:

- A stupid joke suggesting a revered historical figure worked in a gas station
with
- A honest suggestion that the nation would be a better place if a segregationist had won the 1948 election.

Come on man... you can do better than this.

Troll

8th January 2004, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Oh forchistsakes. I heard this BS comparison on KneeJerk Hive Think radio yesterday morning.

Let's go ahead and not fallaciously equate:

- A stupid joke suggesting a revered historical figure worked in a gas station
with
- A honest suggestion that the nation would be a better place if a segregationist had won the 1948 election.

Come on man... you can do better than this.

Kneejerk in this but not on Lott?

Hillary was openly stupid in her joke. People had to dig into Lott's meaning to find something to whine about. Did he ever say things would be better because of his segregationist views? No, he simply said something nice about an old fart of a politician at a time when people were honoring the man. Why not give all the other people there honoring him crap for honoring a former segregationist? I mean do we really want to appear that it's okay if you ever held a stupid view in your past? :eek:

What the hell are you going to say if W.VA or politicians honor Byrd one day? That they support the freaking Klan?

I never said one was worse than the other in their comments. I'm merely saying the reaction of people and the media to the comments by both are a little out of proportion. There seems to be a sense of wanting to brush one off while digging into potential hidden meanings in the other.

Attrayant

8th January 2004, 06:21 AM

Yeah well you're bug ugly

Dude, that's just my avatar.

UnrepentantSinner

8th January 2004, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Troll
What the hell are you going to say if W.VA or politicians honor Byrd one day? That they support the freaking Klan?

I'm going to excise your hyperbole down to this one sentence.

I doubt that any honorifics of Byrd will include references to "if his ideas while a Klansman were implemented" America would be a better country. That is exactly what Lott was suggesting when he made the statement he did.

Please tell me that you can see the difference between a stupidly insensative joke and seriously (I can only assume so since it was offered as part of an honoring speech) asserted suggestion that the nation would be a better place if a Segregationist party candidate were elected president in 1948.

Whether Sen. Lott's statements were simply ill conceived can't you comprehend the difference between someone making a stupid ill concieved ethnic joke and someone suggesting that the United States would have been a better place if we'd elected a segregationist president in 1948? Hell, if anything it should shake you to your core because Jeb Bush would not only be convicted of miscengination for marrying a darkie... there's no way in hell he could have been elected governor of Florida.

I can't comprehend why supposedly skeptical reactionaries continue to defend the illogical panderings of talk radio...

Suddenly

8th January 2004, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Troll

What the hell are you going to say if W.VA or politicians honor Byrd one day? That they support the freaking Klan?

Only if we consider his Klan past something to celebrate, which it isn't. If someone stands up and says something on the order that Bob Byrd is a great man because he is the last living former member of the Klan in the federal government, then that person will be political mud, and people will rightly loudly decry that assertion.

Byrd is open about his clan past, considering it to be his greatest shame. What he doesn't say is that given his life station at that point of time his being in the Klan was roughly as significant as his being in, say, the rotary club. He makes no excuses, simply says it was wrong and that he has struggled to make up for his errors.

If Byrd's Klan past is mentioned it likely will be to note the difference of a man then and a man now. Lott's speech was quite a bit different.

I'm sure that the Republican Hate Machine will try to distort things to make any celebration of Byrd to seem like a Klan rally, by taking things out of context and repeating them over and over knowing that most people won't take the time to find out what really happened, then apply that distortion to some mythical monolithic entity called "the left."

Or, if the Klan issue goes unremarked upon, that will be spun into some kind of "they have something to hide" story.

Quite predictable and tiresome, actually.

specious_reasons

8th January 2004, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

(snip)
I'm sure that the Republican Hate Machine will try to distort things to make any celebration of Byrd to seem like a Klan rally, by taking things out of context and repeating them over and over knowing that most people won't take the time to find out what really happened, then apply that distortion to some mythical monolithic entity called "the left."

Or, if the Klan issue goes unremarked upon, that will be spun into some kind of "they have something to hide" story.

Quite predictable and tiresome, actually.

Isn't the above approximately what happened with the funeral of Paul Wellstone? A 3 hour ceremony with the 10 minutes of political rhetoric made to seem like the entire content?

It's all shameful, and both parties are guilty.

specious_reasons

8th January 2004, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Troll
People had to dig into Lott's meaning to find something to whine about.

IIRC, I heard the audio from that ceremony. The tackiness of what Lott said was apparent. There were gasps in the audience immediately after he said it. The (probably unintended) implication of Lott's message was clear.

Troll

8th January 2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by specious_reasons

IIRC, I heard the audio from that ceremony. The tackiness of what Lott said was apparent. There were gasps in the audience immediately after he said it. The (probably unintended) implication of Lott's message was clear.

Well thanks for the acknowledgement of "unintentional. I'm sure Hillary's joke unintentionaly pissed off some as well. I consider both to have just been comments that some took the wrong way.

Troll

8th January 2004, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

I'm going to excise your hyperbole down to this one sentence.

Please tell me that you can see the difference between a stupidly insensative joke and seriously (I can only assume so since it was offered as part of an honoring speech) asserted suggestion that the nation would be a better place if a Segregationist party candidate were elected president in 1948.

Whether Sen. Lott's statements were simply ill conceived can't you comprehend the difference between someone making a stupid ill concieved ethnic joke and someone suggesting that the United States would have been a better place if we'd elected a segregationist president in 1948? Hell, if anything it should shake you to your core because Jeb Bush would not only be convicted of miscengination for marrying a darkie... there's no way in hell he could have been elected governor of Florida.

I can't comprehend why supposedly skeptical reactionaries continue to defend the illogical panderings of talk radio...

Yes I can understand the difference. I can also see that you answered my question with "I doubt that any honorifics of Byrd will include references to "if his ideas while a Klansman were implemented" America would be a better country. That is exactly what Lott was suggesting when he made the statement he did.. So please tell me why we can assume Lott was suggesting something that he did not reference when he spoke, but it's a condition that you would apply to Byrd? I think you're applying a double standard here. Thurmond was not a segregationist at the time of the Lott comments. Byrd is no longer a Klan member. I'm not one to focus on the bad things in one's past if they've changed, maybe Lott ain't either. That's all I'm saying.

And why would I be shaking to my core about Jeb Bush? Are you trying to infer something just because I'm wondering why a conservative got crap for what was read into by some in what he said whereas a democrat is getting less flack for a slightly more open and obvious faux pau? Personally i think neither of the comments warranted news attention. But if they're gonna get it, let it be equal.

Troll

8th January 2004, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Only if we consider his Klan past something to celebrate, which it isn't. If someone stands up and says something on the order that Bob Byrd is a great man because he is the last living former member of the Klan in the federal government, then that person will be political mud, and people will rightly loudly decry that assertion.

did Lott state anything about Thurmond's segregationist past? Seriously, I think there's a double standard being presented here.

headscratcher4

8th January 2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by American

Because she is the epitome of militant political correctness and would be the first to scream like the shrill screaming b!tch that she is if a conservative had made such a joke.

Unlike, for example, Repbulicans, Administration officials, O'Rielys and Limbaugh's of the world, who suggest that anyone who isn't 110% supportive of the Administration aids and abets terror or the US's enemies.

Point: what is "politically" correct, ultimately depends on whether something you think important is being attacked and assailed, and it don't matter if you are "right" or "left".

Troll

8th January 2004, 10:16 AM

In defense of the dumb broad, I son't recall her being one of those that were wailing on Lott when he made his comment, so to be honest I don't see the need for her to be getting wailed on.

But if people are going to wail, I think it should be done without bias.

Suddenly

8th January 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Troll

did Lott state anything about Thurmond's segregationist past? Seriously, I think there's a double standard being presented here.

We wouldn't have all these problems if Strom won in 1948?

What was Strom's major policy position in that campaign?

Hint: He ran as a "Dixiecrat."

Now guess what state Lott comes from, and how many rednecks there are there to pander to...

Not to mention that Strom's presidential bid is largely a footnote seeing he spent the next 50 years in the senate. It isn't like the guy didn't do anything else in his life, and Lott was just being polite about his 15 minutes of fame.

Strom's central shame is his presidential campaign, while Byrd's is his KKK connections. Someone wistful of Strom's campaign is 1) saying they like racist policies, 2) too stupid to be allowed anyhere near a position of power or 3) some combination of 1) and 2).

Whereas Hillary mentioned an Indian in connection with a gas station. Odd that a conservative would consider an implication that someone works hard for a living as a "slur", but go figure.

headscratcher4

8th January 2004, 10:33 AM

At least Byrd has lived up to his past in public and says that he was klan, why and how his views changed...Strom, witness his family values positions and his black daugher, never really did...

Troll

8th January 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

We wouldn't have all these problems if Strom won in 1948?

What was Strom's major policy position in that campaign?

Hint: He ran as a "Dixiecrat."

Now guess what state Lott comes from, and how many rednecks there are there to pander to...

Not to mention that Strom's presidential bid is largely a footnote seeing he spent the next 50 years in the senate. It isn't like the guy didn't do anything else in his life, and Lott was just being polite about his 15 minutes of fame.

Strom's central shame is his presidential campaign, while Byrd's is his KKK connections. Someone wistful of Strom's campaign is 1) saying they like racist policies, 2) too stupid to be allowed anyhere near a position of power or 3) some combination of 1) and 2).

Whereas Hillary mentioned an Indian in connection with a gas station. Odd that a conservative would consider an implication that someone works hard for a living as a "slur", but go figure.

haha, nice try there at the end. Are you saying all gas station attendants work hard for a living, or are you just assuming that the lower the money you make the harder you obviously work? Or maybe, you're one of the few that hasn't heard all the stereotypes?

Either way don't quote me then turn around and imply that I felt she wrongfully used a slur. If she had been standing up and screaming about the Indians running the gas stations and mini-marts and the Arabs running the liquor stores so they can afford the hispanic cleaning lady and buy their kids drugs off the black kid on the corner, then I'd say she was using a slur. But as it is, I've not gone off about her saying it, just the lack of enthusiasm some have towards her comments whilst foaming at the mouth over Lott's. If you want I can include the lack of fomentation done when Byrd has made some pretty dumbassed remarks as well.

Like I said, her comments don't bug me at all. It's the immediate rush to defend her that does bug me.

Suddenly

8th January 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Troll

haha, nice try there at the end. Are you saying all gas station attendants work hard for a living, or are you just assuming that the lower the money you make the harder you obviously work? Or maybe, you're one of the few that hasn't heard all the stereotypes? It seems mathmatically valid to state that those that earn less money have to work more to make a living. Plus, I missed the stereotype about Indian gas station attendants. The one I hear out here in the boonies is about the Indians owning and operating convienience stores (sometimes connected to gas stations, but not always). Owning and operating a convienience store is hard work, full of both financial and physical risks.

Saying a particular ethnic group tends to engage in such capitalistic productive behaviour as being negative seems odd.

Either way don't quote me then turn around and imply that I felt she wrongfully used a slur. If she had been standing up and screaming about the Indians running the gas stations and mini-marts and the Arabs running the liquor stores so they can afford the hispanic cleaning lady and buy their kids drugs off the black kid on the corner, then I'd say she was using a slur. But as it is, I've not gone off about her saying it, just the lack of enthusiasm some have towards her comments whilst foaming at the mouth over Lott's. If you want I can include the lack of fomentation done when Byrd has made some pretty dumbassed remarks as well. Perhaps the lack of enthusiasm has to do with the fact what she said isn't all that much of a slur. This is my point.

If you want to try to decipher Lott's comments as being other than the 3 possibilities I list in the earlier post, please do. His comments were not a slur, rather he either was supporting segregation or he is an idiot. Hillary seemed to have just miscalculated and slurred people by referring to a stereotype that they are hardworking risk taking capitalists. I don't recall the country being torn asunder by this issue, so when comparing it to comments about segregation some proportion is needed when considering the relative idiocy of Lott's comments versus Clinton's.

Like I said, her comments don't bug me at all. It's the immediate rush to defend her that does bug me. It seems to me that the attackers got there first, judging from the initial post in this thread.

mjh36

8th January 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Oh forchistsakes. I heard this BS comparison on KneeJerk Hive Think radio yesterday morning.
I thought NPR stood for National Public Radio. Thanks for the clarification.

UnrepentantSinner

8th January 2004, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by mjh36
I thought NPR stood for National Public Radio. Thanks for the clarification.

Sorry Newbie... Jedi mind tricks don't work in this forum.

Suddenly

8th January 2004, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Sorry Newbie... Jedi mind tricks don't work in this forum.

This is not the reply you were looking for.

Move along...

UnrepentantSinner

8th January 2004, 07:27 PM

I'm less defending her or her remarks than voicing my outrage over talk radio meatheads crying foul that Lott was pilloried while Hillery's getting a free ride.

Let's look at Lott's comments.

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either,"

And a quote from Strom Thurmond in 1948.

"All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

Let's contrast this with Hillary's comment.

(referencing Gandhi)"He ran a gas station down in St. Louis."

Reactionary radio has gone ape scat claiming that Lott was crucified for being conservative while Hillary's getting a free ride. Rush has several "editorials" on his website equating the two. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't wash. We not talking apples and oranges here, we're talking apples and gypsum.

Aoidoi

8th January 2004, 07:38 PM

Could you imagine Palpatine's press conferences?

"Hey, there's that @**hole from the Coruscant Daily. Whoops, mic was on? [hand wave] That was not the comment you were looking for."

"This universe would have been a better place had we elected Jar Jar to be President/evil overlord. Wait, he ran on a Amphibian Supremecist ticket? [hand wave] That was not the complinent you were looking for."

"I'd like to say that I once saw R2D2 working at a gas station in Mos Eisley... whoops, stereotype. [hand wave] I have never seen that droid before in my life."

KelvinG

8th January 2004, 07:39 PM

Look, I'm no Trent Lott fan but does anyone seriously believe that when he made his comments about the country being better off he was actually saying that Stromm's racism was a good thing that would have made the USA a better place to live?
If that was his intent, then surely it was also his intent that night to commit political suicide.
Let's face it. The remark was an attempt to flatter the old geezer and nothing else.

Similarly, does anyone really think Hillary was intent on making a specifically derogatory racial remark? It might have been a dumb thing to say, but call off the bloody lynch mob! It's no wonder politicians have to walk on egg shells all the time. They aren't allowed to say anything.

michaellee

8th January 2004, 08:17 PM

originally posted by Attrayant
missed the part that makes her a dope. Was it because she made a mistake, or because she apologized for it?[
A. she made a mistake?
B. she apologized for it?

The question begs for an additional choice, "C."

C. she earned the qualification based on previous actions/comments?

Anyone for a "D."?

The idea

8th January 2004, 08:21 PM

This thread is practically untouchable, but here goes. Hillary is a lawyer, not a movie director, so why does she try to caste Gandhi (another lawyer) in an unflattering role? Is it professional jealousy? Vaishya was Gandhi's station in life, but Hillary has done him a disservice.

peptoabysmal

8th January 2004, 08:39 PM

Amazing.

We start off with a racist remark by Hillary Clinton about the stereotype of South Asians working in gas stations and end up at Strom Thurmond.

You can't shake hands with the devil and then say "I was only kidding". I always thought it was lame when someone said something stupid, and the next thing that rolls off of their tongue is "I was only kidding". It reveals a very insincere personality. What we have here is a Freudian slip, just another liberal Democrat feigning concern for minorities, and then the truth is revealed that Hillary feels not but contempt for minorities.

I could probably shorten that statement to "Hillary feels not but contempt" and be getting very close to the truth.

KelvinG

8th January 2004, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
What we have here is a Freudian slip, just another liberal Democrat feigning concern for minorities, and then the truth is revealed that Hillary feels not but contempt for minorities.

Yes, it's usually just conservative republicans that we expect such racism from.;)

UnrepentantSinner

8th January 2004, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Amazing.

We start off with a racist remark by Hillary Clinton about the stereotype of South Asians working in gas stations and end up at Strom Thurmond.

Hey man, I'm just continuing the brilliant logic of your talk radio meatheads who were filling the airwaves with the same thing. If you're astounded by it, take it up with Rush, et. al.

mjh36

9th January 2004, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

Hey man, I'm just continuing the brilliant logic of your talk radio meatheads who were filling the airwaves with the same thing. If you're astounded by it, take it up with Rush, et. al.
Is that a Jedi mind trick? I thought they weren't allowed in this forum?

Don't you just love Rush? Here is a man who is more universally hated than just about any media personality in existence, yet he clearly dominates talk radio and has for over a decade. Add in the ratings and popularity of Dennis Prager, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved and I can see why someone who so openly hates conservatism would be so angry.

BTW - Hillary's moment of infamy lasted exactly that...a moment. Both wings of the media machine always find some new tidbit to terrorize us with. It is like political MadLibs where you just insert names and quotes. For every fantasy thrown out by Ann Coulter, I can find the equivalent from Janeane Garofalo. Same with Rush, et al. For every negative thing he says about Hillary, I can find an NPR equivalent about Bush.

Looks like our two party hate system and cultural Civil War are plodding along as usual. Life, liberty and the pursuit of someone to holler at.

The Fool

9th January 2004, 05:13 PM

Evolver

9th January 2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by mjh36

Same with Rush, et al. For every negative thing he says about Hillary, I can find an NPR equivalent about Bush.

So you equate Rush Limbaugh & NPR?

:jaw:

Someone doesn't like to be informed.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

9th January 2004, 09:30 PM

Did Hillary apoligise yet for this statement?

"I truly regret if a lame attempt at humour suggested otherwise," the statement said.

particularly to people with reduced mobility, or war vets, or amputees for using the word "lame" to describe her attempt
at humour?

BTW, I am being facetious.

American

9th January 2004, 10:30 PM

Hillary's joke was about the same as saying blacks love fried chicken.

As for the specifics of it, she insulted the thousands of Indians who saturate new england in every field. You cannot get through a computer science program or get a medical degree without having one or more Indian professors who speak english as a second language. They are a highly technical bunch, and their own hard work deserves all credit- not government programs or Hillary and the democrap party.

Suddenly

10th January 2004, 06:11 AM

I'm just wanting to be clear on this... are all ethnic stereotypes now the moral equivilent of racial slurs?

If I mention that my Italian freinds would disagree, but they were too busy eating pasta, making book and planning an insurance fire to say so, am I some sort of racist?

I'm just curious. Being a hillbilly and all perhaps I should start being more offended anyone sombody makes an incest or "trailer with a satellite dish" type joke. Perhaps I'm missing a lot of chances to act indignant about that. Or perhaps others should be indignant on my behalf, considering their general willingness to do so as reflected in this thread.

When did conservatives get so "P.C.?" Did I miss the memo or something? Will they be screaming for the Washington NFL franchise to change its name, seeing as "Redskin" is as explicit as racial slurs come...

Or will that only happen if Hillary becomes a "Redskin" fan?

Tricky

10th January 2004, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by American
You cannot get through a computer science program or get a medical degree without having one or more Indian professors who speak english as a second language. They are a highly technical bunch, and their own hard work deserves all credit.
So the Indians have risen from difficult beginnings due to their own hard work. You know, that sounds remarkably like what Hillary was saying, but without the humor.

NoZed Avenger

10th January 2004, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

So the Indians have risen from difficult beginnings due to their own hard work. You know, that sounds remarkably like what Hillary was saying, but without the humor.

Well, to be fair, hers was largely without the humor, too --
but really, people's hyper-sensitivity on this is mystifying to me.

ITS OVER. IT WAS MINOR; SHE'S APOLOGIZED. EVERYONE MOVE ALONG. RETURN TO YOUR LIVES.

Sorry about the yelling, but Jiminy Christ*, people!

N/A

* The cricket that died for our sins