dyslexia wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:dyslexia wrote:Yes, foxfyre, it's all about you and the need of nasty people to attack you.
Your credibility has nothing to do with it.
I have found that the incidence of ad hominem attacks
and negative credibility assessments from politically correct liberals
is closely associated with the utterance of messages that thay LIKE or
that thay ABHOR.
" Do blind people join nudist camps? "
Maybe the exhibitionistic ones ?
Thanks David, I needed that reminder to not be so arrogant and obnoxious. Especially coming from you. You must be that good angel that sits on my shoulder only to remind me of my failings, sometimes I forget them.
OK; we all have room for improvement.
David
More like room for a sense of irony, apparently...
Lash wrote:I agree with one of Fox's points.
Keltic nor snood should feel comfortable saying that "black people" wouldn't allow something.
They (black people) aren't a monolithic swarm, travelling together. I don't know how Keltic or snood interacts or the type of people they interact with--nor do I know this about Fox. What I DO know is I have been in a close working relationship with a majority black staff, made up of individuals--not a glued together monostrosity with BLACK stamped on its collective head.
I have got black friends who generously apply the n-word to me, a lowly white boy from the city....and white friends that can't stop calling each other cracker-ass-crackers.
That these "rules" apply to our small circle of friends is hardly a litmus test for how to deal with individual people of individual races.
If Foxy feels so comfortable using the n-word toward blacks, then I'd like to see her try saying it to
any of my black friends....and walk away unscathed.
candidone1 wrote:Lash wrote:I agree with one of Fox's points.
Keltic nor snood should feel comfortable saying that "black people" wouldn't allow something.
They (black people) aren't a monolithic swarm, travelling together. I don't know how Keltic or snood interacts or the type of people they interact with--nor do I know this about Fox. What I DO know is I have been in a close working relationship with a majority black staff, made up of individuals--not a glued together monostrosity with BLACK stamped on its collective head.
I have got black friends who generously apply the n-word to me, a lowly white boy from the city....and white friends that can't stop calling each other cracker-ass-crackers.
That these "rules" apply to our small circle of friends is hardly a litmus test for how to deal with individual people of individual races.
If Foxy feels so comfortable using the n-word toward blacks, then I'd like to see her try saying it to
any of my black friends....and walk away unscathed.
It almost seems as though you didn't read her posts. Instead, you have read around them and only took from those posts what she said. I would suggest going back and actually reading what
she wrote instead of what other wrote about what she wrote.
Foxfire is on the same tired old bandwagon, repeating silly rabid right sound bytes until she has thoroughly brainwashed herself. Indeed she is quite wrong when she says that we don't know her friends or what she knows about them. She has described herself and her friends (imaginary?) many times on this forum until most of us probably feel that we know her almost as well as our own family.
To quote Fox: "Everybody I know personally wants the defnition of marriage to remain unchanged and that includes my gay friends out of respect for their parents if for no other reason.
Everybody I know personally also has no problems with contractual relationships forming family units by any others as well."
Hogwash! How cowardly can you be to claim that you are doing this for the sake of your gay friend's & their parents! You are spewing your hatred for one reason and one reason only..... to cover your own fear of a gay couple moving in next door to you or being elected to a public office, etc.
IF you did not have a problem the "contractual relationships" you would not have spent months (years) protesting in righteous indignation every time the subject is mentioned.
Fox goes on to say, "I don't know of a single one who does not support traditional marriage or who does not also support civil unions or who does not also believe these should kept separate".
Traditional marriage Fox? Like that practiced by the rabid right, so called Christian conservatives who have the highest divorce rate in the country if not the world?!! Traditional, like those who use the "N" word without blinking an eye, then screams in righteous indignation when called on that vile word? You continue, "I suppose they don't have any friends and can't understand it. A pity don't you think? "
Yeah Fox, it is a pity that you are so blind that you don't recognize your own self-serving prejudices and I do seriously doubt that you have many friends unless you count the KKK! Kelticwizard has you all figured out as do many other in this forum. You make up stories and friends to fit the occasion and then throw a hissy fit when no one believes you.
LMAO.... I have a doctor's appt. and will have to return to this tragedy later. Don't leave Fox. I want to tell you about my grandson who is a combination of native American, white, and black. I also want to tell you what I will do if you ever have the guts show your face at my door and call him the "N" word.
McGentrix wrote:candidone1 wrote:Lash wrote:I agree with one of Fox's points.
Keltic nor snood should feel comfortable saying that "black people" wouldn't allow something.
They (black people) aren't a monolithic swarm, travelling together. I don't know how Keltic or snood interacts or the type of people they interact with--nor do I know this about Fox. What I DO know is I have been in a close working relationship with a majority black staff, made up of individuals--not a glued together monostrosity with BLACK stamped on its collective head.
I have got black friends who generously apply the n-word to me, a lowly white boy from the city....and white friends that can't stop calling each other cracker-ass-crackers.
That these "rules" apply to our small circle of friends is hardly a litmus test for how to deal with individual people of individual races.
If Foxy feels so comfortable using the n-word toward blacks, then I'd like to see her try saying it to
any of my black friends....and walk away unscathed.
It almost seems as though you didn't read her posts. Instead, you have read around them and only took from those posts what she said. I would suggest going back and actually reading what
she wrote instead of what other wrote about what she wrote.
Thank you McG. Only the small minded would take one unique special relationship used as an illustration of context versus the literal words and try to twist it into something universal or otherwise nefarious. And you're right. Any one of us can pluck somebody's statement out of one quote and plunk it down into a different context and make it look awful. The intellectually honest will not do that.
I would like to see this thread get back onto the topic however as I think it is an important one to discuss.
Poor 'widdle mis-understood' Foxy...... see you later
Rest them peepers, 'Kat - no need to strain 'em on the likes of this.
candidone1 wrote:Lash wrote:I agree with one of Fox's points.
Keltic nor snood should feel comfortable saying that "black people" wouldn't allow something.
They (black people) aren't a monolithic swarm, travelling together. I don't know how Keltic or snood interacts or the type of people they interact with--nor do I know this about Fox. What I DO know is I have been in a close working relationship with a majority black staff, made up of individuals--not a glued together monostrosity with BLACK stamped on its collective head.
I have got black friends who generously apply the n-word to me, a lowly white boy from the city....and white friends that can't stop calling each other cracker-ass-crackers.
That these "rules" apply to our small circle of friends is hardly a litmus test for how to deal with individual people of individual races.
If Foxy feels so comfortable using the n-word toward blacks, then I'd like to see her try saying it to
any of my black friends....and walk away unscathed.
I have several black friends with whom I was deployed with that called me "nigga" and I called them the same thing. It wasn't that way with other people we were deployed with. It was a selective thing and I would by no means walk up to a black person and call them a nigga. That is signing a death warrant.
Baldimo wrote:candidone1 wrote:Lash wrote:I agree with one of Fox's points.
Keltic nor snood should feel comfortable saying that "black people" wouldn't allow something.
They (black people) aren't a monolithic swarm, travelling together. I don't know how Keltic or snood interacts or the type of people they interact with--nor do I know this about Fox. What I DO know is I have been in a close working relationship with a majority black staff, made up of individuals--not a glued together monostrosity with BLACK stamped on its collective head.
I have got black friends who generously apply the n-word to me, a lowly white boy from the city....and white friends that can't stop calling each other cracker-ass-crackers.
That these "rules" apply to our small circle of friends is hardly a litmus test for how to deal with individual people of individual races.
If Foxy feels so comfortable using the n-word toward blacks, then I'd like to see her try saying it to
any of my black friends....and walk away unscathed.
I have several black friends with whom I was deployed with that called me "nigga" and I called them the same thing. It wasn't that way with other people we were deployed with. It was a selective thing and I would by no means walk up to a black person and call them a nigga. That is signing a death warrant.
Thanks, baldimo. That's the point. It depends on the relationship. I wouldn't walk up to a stranger and talk to them the same way I would a close friend. Who would?
Noone would, of course.
I disagree with you Conservatives on a lot of things, but this is asinine
Cycloptichorn
Baldimo wrote: I have several black friends with whom I was deployed with that called me "nigga" and I called them the same thing. It wasn't that way with other people we were deployed with.
Okay, you have just described a situation where you are deployed-that is, everyone is in constant danger and your life depends on others doing their job well, and their life depends on you doing your job well.
Under such a situation, I can imagine that people relate to each other in a way that is far different from just about any other situation.
I am not going to agree or disagree with what you just said. But I have an important question. It is this: have you ever seen a situation OUTSIDE of the one you described-deployed in a war-where you have seen black people not minding when a white person-even a close friend-calls them the "N-word"? I am talking about two people who were not deployed in war together.
It's bizarre, KW - right out of the bizzaro world....
Here you are, trying to convince people that it's the exception, and not the rule, that white people would be able to casually use that word with black people.
Next you'll be in pitched battle trying to hold the line against someone trying to convince you that all that "round earth" stuff is a myth.
Hold your dominion, as Noddy says.
My question to Baldimo would be phrased somewhat differently.
Acknowledged that we don't use certain blatantly politically incorrect or potentially hurtful/inflammatory terms with anybody we don't know very very well and nobody suggests such terms are acceptable outside special close relationships.
But your Army buds that you have been through so much with and who you are probably closer to than some members of your own family, can you envision having a private drink and saying 'nigga' to each other in friendly banter?
...working in a mental hospital, where people's lives literally depend on trust in those they work with.
If Cyclo, snood nor KW have enjoyed relationships of that degree with people of other races, I can well sympathize with their inability to understand what it is like.
Hopefully, they'll understand one day.
It seems it all boils down to whether abortion counseling is an abortion service. Is legal advice a legal service even when the provider does not offer representation in court? I would say so. There are lots of things in advertising and the yellow pages for example that might be construed as misleading by some people. But misleading is not the same as fraudulant.
In my opinion, the title "American Civil Liberties Union" is extremely misleading as well. When a law is passed to make them change their name, then perhaps I would consider supporting a law to limit "abortion services" to only include the actual medical procedure and exclude all other services surrounding abortion such as counseling, etc. as being an "abortion service."
Having seen no documentation on the centers allegedly offering 'abortion services" when in fact they do not provide nor advocate abortions also begs the question. Do they in fact advocate "abortion services" or "abortion counseling"? I would think the latter would suggest a very different emphasis from the former, at least to most people.
But Okie's point is well taken that advertising does not have to be truthful in order to not be fraudulent. You can't promise a result that you can't deliver, but you can use whatever means is necessary to attract people to your product or service. You can say your product is best when it isn't, but you can't say it cures cancer if it won't.
So we have "Expert Plumbing Company" run by one guy who doesn't know which end of the plunger is the business end, and "Mercy Hospital" that won't take anybody without adequate insurance, and "Honest John's Used Car Lot" offering the best deals in the county. Honest John, by the way, can also advertise "Bad credit? No problem!" without having to spell out that you're going to be soaked with the highest legal interest rate possible. Some people would think that was a problem.
And we don't even have to discuss campaign advertising.
So if an agency advertises "abortion services" while interpreting the service as counseling mothers to have their babies, that seems pretty darn mild in comparison to other advertising that could be considered misleading.
Good points, Foxfyre, and this has all been hashed and rehashed here on this topic. Bottom line, this country has always given leniency to advertisers and politicians to say all kinds of things and represent themselves in all kinds of ways, to insure something very basic in this country, called "freedom of speech." So we err on the side of allowing all kinds of things that may appear to be misleading to some people, perhaps very misleading to lots of people. Where we have typically drawn the line is when misleading becomes fraudulant, which is typically defined by bilking people out of money.
If lawmakers want to go down that road of clamping down on misleading advertising and names, I think the avenues of action are far more numerous than "abortion services." My argument here has always been one that I do recognize the term may be misleading, and that I would not personally represent the business that way, but that legislating this in particular is simply a matter of personal bias against those that oppose abortion and would not be consistent with the way we treat most everything else in the advertising world. Creating a law to define something so narrow in scope as this is a total waste of congressional time and money in my opinion.
Bottom line, if someone can demonstrate they have been defrauded in a court of law by some entity like this, then I would say let them try to do so to their heart's content. There are already adequate laws governing fraud to cover that possibility, and if they are successful, other similar businesses will soon get the message.
True. A few years ago in Alaska we signed up for an excursion on a river boat promising that we would see "eagle and beaver activity" and we eagerly anticipated seeing beaver and bald eagles in the wild. Well, we saw a couple of trees that beaver had gnawed and we did see one abandoned eagle nest. No beavers. No eagles. But we've joked ever since that we definitely saw "eagle and beaver activity" and that wide latitude can be applied in the definition of 'activity'.
Unless the government applies a legal definition to the word 'services', I would think there would be a wide latitude available as to how that would be defined too.
