who cares if I am dishonest or not? that's the point. If I write something, shouldn't it be judged on the merits of what is written, and not who has written it? Does what I am in anyway mean anything? No...I don't think so!
It goes beyond his dishonesty. He was actually taunting people in that thread because they believed him and laughing at how funny his "experiment" had been. And he still doesn't get why people had such a negative reaction to him and won't just forget it.
NewYorker, I tried not to chime in this discussion, but failed. To be fair, your race probably has nothing to do with most of the discussions, but it's a big deal when you used that as your key argument. It was never about PC culture, as you tried to make it here. It was about certain people were offended by certain actions. You told them that they SHOULD NOT be offended at all, and it is not a big deal. You can't claim that if you are totally strange of their feelings or situations. If you are in their shoes, you might have some merit to compare your feelings with theirs. At the time, you were obviously losing your argument, you took this chance to claim that you ARE in their shoes. Then, people took you seriously in debating you, as an Indian decent was not offended by the Macacca comment. You even went on to tell stories about how you, as an Indian decent, ALWAYS threw racial slurs against each other, among your buddies in all races, for fun. Under those circumstances, when you used your race to back up your argument, it's fair game to others to continue the discussion involving your race. Besides, it wasn't about you criticising China as you made it out to be here. It was about you telling Chinese people to shutup about the Japanese PM shrine visit, and they should NOT be offended at all. Again, it's your right to be offended by something or not; it's other people's right to be offended by the same thing as well. However, to claim that you are the same as those other people, and you weren't offended so they shouldn't, is wrong. It's way worse, it turns out that you lied about that you were the same as those who were offended. It's even worse, as you admitted later in the same thread, you only did that for fun, to make a point (whatever it was), or trying to win an argument. It's not political correctness culture, but rather basic decency. If I were you, I would simply admit that it was wrong to do so, and then move on. There will be chances, others still make fun of me because of that, I would definitely not twist what happened again to downplay my own wrongdoings. That's called Move On.
Oh come on! The whole point of the thread was that people are overally sensitive - I'm definitely anti-political correctness, so I of course push the limits. I'm sorry that some people still have sore feelings about that....but everything on there was true up until I got a bit freaked out with people knowing some personal stuff about me (my race) and making light of it. If I was taunting anyone, it was because I was returning the favor. But if I had known so many people would be wounded by my positionings and such, I would not have done it. But what am I suppose to say I was wrong for? Trying to annoymize my race? I don't know, I don't think that was wrong per se. People like on here left and right - it's the net for heaven's sake. No one has to believe what I write, simply don't respond then...but why keep bringing something up? Why live in the past? Look to the future people! The future is bright! Forget the past! I'm just text on a screen... So should Indian Americans be offended by George Allen calling some guy macaca? Hell no. Maybe there should be more concern that there isn't any positive protrayels (or accurate ones) of indian americans in media. I mean, where's the Indian in Grey's Anatomy? Where's the Indian's in all those medical shows...I mean, c'mon, have you ever seen an ER without an Indian doctor? Why are we always deligated to the funny talking cab driver or store owner? To me, that's what is offensive....not some moron calling someone of my race macaca. Just seems everyone is so hypersensitve about what someone says instead of trying to figure out why such harrowing stereotypes exist in our society that no one ever cares to address.
first, you know for a fact that that some guy is American Indian and he got offended. So any other American Indian in his place exposed to what George Allen blurted will definitely offended as well.
Who the h*ll are you to tell people what should and should not offend them? Esp when you are OF them? What Offends a person . . is personal It is like pissing on your floor . .then telling you I piss on the floor at home Does it make it any less offensive? Rocket River
I haven't construed it to be anything. when the pres is speaking before the nation about what his plans are regarding terrorism/al qaeda/Bin Laden, and he says that we will get him dead or alive, then I don't call that off the cuff, in the passion of the moment or anything else. I was playing along with your off the cuff claim, because even if it was off the cuff, he still said it, and he should still live up to his word. What part of not living up to your word changes because you say something off the cuff? But since you seem to not hold anyone to anything they said if it was off the cuff, let me refresh your memor on how Bush's pledge or promise came about. By the way pledge and promise are both used to describe Bush's 'dead or alive' speach by the BBC so it isn't just people looking for a reason to hang something on the guy. It was not at an impromptu question and answer session with the press that Bush said this. Bush went himself to the Pentagon briefing in order to discuss the plans following 9/11. This was less than one week after 9/11 so you can't pretend like he was blindsided by a question about Bin Laden, or didn't expect questions on it. In fact later in the same press conference he spoke to the matter again.
www.TammyBruce.com Now Hillary Steps Into It Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Woman Who Would be President, launched a vigorous defense of her husband after he had his Fox News Sunday meltdown. The problem is, while people like her could fabricate history years ago, it's not so easy anymore. Now with the internet, which provides virtually immediate access to documents, she should realize that making it up as you go along just won't cut it. Consider this great analysis by Thomas Joscelyn at the Weekly Standard: Warning Signs: Hillary Clinton attempts to rewrite history. YESTERDAY, in the wake of President Clinton's interview on Fox News, Senator Hillary Clinton defended her husband's counterterrorism track record. Reacting to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's assertion that the Bush administration "was at least as aggressive" in the eight months preceding September 11, 2001 as the Clinton administration was in the years prior, the former first lady remarked: "I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team." Apparently referring to the August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing, which was entitled "bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," Senator Clinton suggested that her husband did not receive the same type of warnings that President Bush did. In fact, President Clinton signed a similar classified document--which contained an explicit warning from the U.S. Intelligence Community that bin Laden intended to strike inside the United States, more than two years prior to leaving office. And the U.S. intelligence community collected numerous pieces of intelligence concerning bin Laden's determination to strike inside the United States during President Clinton's tenure. Oops, Hillary, your philandering husband has made you look like a flaming idiot once again. And has anyone noticed, for a man who supposedly "meant" to have a meltdown on national television, there's an awful lot of defense and damage-control going on? \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ I'm glad I titled this thing Clinton instead of just Bill....
Of course none of that is disputed. Clinton admitted that he failed and didn't do enough. The questions remain... Why is the Bush administration pretending they did as much as Clinton did, when they didn't? Why doesn't FOX and other media press the Bush administration on their lack of response to the Cole bombing.
You are overlooking his own words ~"no matter how long it takes." OBL might just be dead already-- may have been for awhile. Who knows? I have plenty of backbone; I'm still here aren't I?
First of all...learn the difference between an American Indian and an Indian American. My god, next thing you know you'll be calling me big chief. Last thing I need is to have the ignorant lecture me on race.
I'm telling people to have thicker skin...I'm so over this PC stuff. If someone is going to be offended by being called some word that means monkey in some african dialect (not Indian mind-you), then they are PC all the way...and let me tell you something, I've asked my family and not a single one of them knew what macaca meant! I'm more offended by the fact that people don't complain why there aren't more Indian doctors on TV. Hey, maybe if they were, people would have a bit more respect....but liberals like you would rather just use race to find a way to attack republicans rather then actually address racial problems.
You seem to be confusing racism with being anti-PC. I have always hated PC crap. I've hated racism even more though.
I am not overlooking anything. His actions show what his priorities are. Bush had Bin Laden at Tora Tora Tora Bora and let him get away. Bush pulled troops that were in the area of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda away from that area and put them into Iraq which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Now he has 7 times as many troops fighting in Iraq as he had in Afghanistan. His actions speak loudly about how serious he was about his pledges to get Bin Laden dead or alive. By the way if Bin Laden is dead already that has nothing to do with Bush getting him and bringing him to justice. It has to do with unrealated health issues. Please tell me now that we can at least agree that Bush didn't just make the statement off the cuff, in a moment of passion. It would also be great if we could agree that giving his word should mean he ought to live up to it whether it was off the cuff or not.
