It's fairly simple and straightforward, actually. Consider the fact that Bob's lying to Sue does not relieve YOU of an obligation to honesty.
Part of your problem may be that you don't understand the notion of political correctness -- it doesn't have the narrow and demarcated boundaries you suggest -- and instead use the term as you've been taught to, as a supposedly defamatory but actually hollow political buzzword in the style of "tax-and-spend liberal".
No, he's just reciting from the primer. Perhaps you have "memorized" it as well.
Ah, this notion of disparaging via low expectations would indeed help explain right-wing reluctance to invest in the poor and in social safety nets.
You've completely missed the point. Many people who are not connected in any way to the Christian religion celebrate a holiday called Christmas, complete with all the warm-hearted, traditional, and over-commercialized trimmings that consumerism has invented and attached to it. That is their individual right.
Well done. You just answered your own question. It's inaccurate, but you did manage to answer it.
Your problem is that you haven't any evidence to back up your opinions. I, on the other hand, do.
"Like" for me anyway, does not equate with "agree"..
I agree. TV commercials are beneath Liberals, therefore, they should assure advertisers that there would be zero repercussions if they depict their non-white talent in a less than positive role. Can I count you to head up that effort on DP?
Seriously? TV commercials? Do you know why they call it the boob tube? Do you know what the purpose of advertising is? Do you actually expect that we can look to advertising agencies as the cutting edge that defines the moral fabfic of this society? You might want to just rethink thios whole thought from the top.
Oh yes, it's helped quite a lot in fleshing out the picture of what popping off some of the steam of repressed old white guy backlash looks like.
For now, yes. See, the way this works is, I provide an example or source to back up my point, and then you provide an example or source that is as at least as good, or better than mine. I'm sorry, Cardinal, but your opinion isn't going to cut it. Either produce an example or a source or stop typing.
No, that isn't how it works at all. Your logic is worse than your examples. The fact remains that at least a signficant part of your problem stems from your not understanding the concept of political correctness to begin with. It does not have anything like the narrow and demarcated boundaries you suggested earlier, and you use the term only in the childish manner once taught to you -- as a supposedly pejorative but actually empty bumper-sticker buzzword in the style of "tax-and-spend liberal". At least as so far put forward, your take on the matter is devoid of any recognizable sense or merit at all. It's just regurgitated emotion. Fear and insecurity, yes, actually rational thought, no.
Some Tim Allen grunts would have gone so well here...
OK, CF, educate me. What is Political Correctness?
I think we should do that with everything.
Actually, where I come from, we do call them mmgmlbfmfflbns, and I'm offended you find this amusing.
You'd better run that past Cardinal Fang, first.
Start here. See all those References and Further reading entries at the bottom? Explore those liberally as well. You have a lot of catching up to do.
Oh, I'm all in favor of his right to create a thread and whine like a little baby about whatever he wants. He does have a point though...making fun of mmgmlbfmfflbns is insensitive at the very least.