It's a legitimate word in the proper context....for example, Barack Obama's elite Ivy league education r****ded his rational thought process.
Another shot across the bow in NC <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JXxkctYRAZQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JXxkctYRAZQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
I don't suppose it would be possible to just lock this thread? I think it would do everyone a favor. Maybe the topic could be brought up in a new one. Impeach Bush.
r****ded is a medical term and should not be offensive. Refering to someone as a r****d is offensive.
My niece is a person with autism. She is not a personal with mental r****dation. I am not personally offended by the use of the term "r****d", because it does not apply to my niece. However, I do find it insensitive for people to not use people first language.
Such as? Incidentally, autism and mental r****dation are two different things. But I do not condone either as an insult and have posted that before (mostly to a reception of ridicule).
Correct they are 2 different things. However, many with a diagnosis of severe autism are also diagnosed as mentally r****ded. Many autistic people who can not speak clearly or utter odd sounds are often erroneously referred to as being mentally r****ded.
Absolutely there is some crossover but so much of the incorrect diagnoses are a result of not fully understanding autism. Never mind the many many levels of autism. As such, I dislike it when the association is automatically made.
I've definitely used the word "r****d" as an insult in the past when talking about Bush. While I would never call someone who has an actual handicap a r****d, I can see where people would still be offended by the use of the word and I'm going to stop using it as an insult. That said, I don't think jugdish was doing that in this thread. His use of r****d was similar to the way Mark Twain used n_gger in Huckleberry Finn, as rhetorical device to try and convey the attitude of a certain type of person. In this case, a person who would criticize Obama as weak, if he refused to execute the mentally disabled.
Well, I guess the USA will get what it deserves if we elect another president based on the type of ads that get the TJ's of the world so excited. Interesting that this is the only way that McCain supporters feel they can win. People may very well fall for the fear mongering again. Also expect Bin Laden to make another appearance on TV as he wants the US to keep bogged down in Iraq and he can count on McCain for that. Anybody know if the European countries, Canada, Australia etc. run this type of crap ads on their TV's during the political campaigns? To me it is a type of political p*rnography that should be regulated somehow.
McCain called for the ads to be taken off the air. He denounced them. This is the state GOP's efforts, and those of an outside 527 group.
He says he sent them an email. The RNC Chairman left a voicemail. Maybe that will make a difference. I doubt it. We'll see a continual roll out of these type of things where the ads are so bad that nobody but "news" broadcasts will run them as part of their "analysis." McCain will wring his hands and take the high road if he even acknowledges it at all. This is the same pattern W exhibited in his runs. Now, I could be wrong. Maybe McCain is different... and we all know that if an "independent" Republican group, much less a state GOP org, is told to stop by the Republican nominee, they will. But my guess is we'll have a whole series of wink-wink deals from now until November. And really, sending an email and dropping a voicemail is not exactly the definition of leadership. If they were serious, they could easily get in touch with a real person.
I have the perception, valid or not, that the rest of the world's politics are at least as dirty as ours, and generally the amount of filth is roughly proportional to the amount of power associated with the post. As a city councilman that I consider a friend said, "The second-oldest profession bears a striking resemblence to the oldest." That is from the Chirac re-election, when he ran against LePen. Inspired by the famous Edwin Edwards-David Duke race, it says, "Elect the Crook, Not the Fascist." There isn't much that you don't want regulated somehow, right?
What is he supposed to do, climb up on the tv station roof and rip out all the satellites to make sure the ad doesn't hit the airwaves? Absurd. He did all he could do and acted appropriately.
So you believe that the GOP Nominee for President and the head of the RNC did all they could do and all that they could do was to send an email and leave a voicemail? To the North Carolina GOP? Who's being naive Kay? Come on. If McCain doesn't have the staff to get him in touch with a real person in a leadership position in his own party that says he's either incompetent or doesn't care. If the former, then what does that say about him as a potential president? "I did leave a voicemail at Putin's work number. Maybe he'll do what I asked in the message." And if it's the latter, then he's no better than Bush... letting surrogates do the dirty work with a wink-wink deal. Now, again, maybe my suspicions are wrong and maybe McCain does care and maybe he did do something more forceful. If that's the case, I'll admit I erred. We'll see.
By the way, it's interesting that you go from celebrating a hit piece to defending McCain when he claims to have problems with it. If you were true to your first post, it seems you'd be upset with McCain for potentially preventing the end of Obama. And please explain how he acted appropriately while you were a cheerleader for the very thing he's against? Does that make you inappropriate?
A post held by supporters on the street is very different than Ads running on national TVs and Newspapers. Please correct me if I am wrong, US is probably the only country allow negative ads against other products/candidates. In other countries, you can sell your product as much as you want to, but you are not allowed to put other brands specifically in your ads for comparison. Remember those Pepsi ads? They were either direct attack on Coca Cola or a underhanded jab. Such ads shouldn't be allowed. Similarly, Clinton's ads shouldn't mention Obama's name or put his picture on directly, nor should Obama's ads do. This kind of practice goes way back, but on the end, it's what allowed in US for advertisement.
You're definitely wrong. One example: Internet only because the UK bans all political ads on TV, but it has all the markings of an US hit piece, with some anti-Americanism thrown in for good measure: <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AoBoc4kVKrw&rel=0&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AoBoc4kVKrw&rel=0&color1=0xd6d6d6&color2=0xf0f0f0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> That damn 1st Amendment. Think of all the things we could ban without it.
Can't see any video at work. But I was talking about National TV and Newspaper. There are regulations for those ads elsewhere to limit attacks. That's why the examples you gave ended up on the Internet. Speaking of 1st Amendment, unless you are saying no country except for US has freedom of speech, if they ban attacking Ads. BTW, that nipple flipping scene didn't pass regulations.