(September 14, 2012 at 3:24 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:Absolutey not. I'm not running cover for Limbaugh or anybody else. The use of that term under any circumstance is uncalled for...and just so you know, I see what you're trying to do too. You're in denial of the double standards and hypocrisy that exists on the left, when you're confronted with it, you deflect and distract to cover up the hypocrisy.(September 14, 2012 at 3:16 pm)A Theist Wrote: ....then the use of that term should be tasteless and unprofessional under any circumstance.
Agreed.
Again, did you miss the last four times I called Schultz "unprofessional" and "tasteless".
Quote:To me it seems as if you're saying that although you agree the term is tasteless and unprofessional, you can see the justification of using it to describe a woman under some circumstances.
Not at all. At no time did I defend Schultz or justify his use of the term.
My point, and somehow you keep missing it, is...
a political attack =/= personal defamation of character.
...Ed Schultz was attacking Ingram politically, using very inappropriate and unprofessional language, but still a political attack as is clear by the context. Limbaugh was attacking Fluke personally and sexually, as well as coming on to her to make a sex tape for him.
The two are not equivalent. Kind of like how a misdemeanor is not equivalent to a felony. Both are breaking the law but they're not the same.
You are desperate to make them equivalent to run cover for Limbaugh. Just so you know, I see what you're trying to do.
Quote:Apples and apples DP.
Apples and oranges, AT.
It's all the same DP.
Apples to apples.
"Inside every Liberal there's a Totalitarian screaming to get out"
Quote: JohnDG...
Quote: JohnDG...
Quote:It was an awful mistake to characterize based upon religion. I should not judge any theist that way, I must remember what I said in order to change.