Neither of the people that I mentioned in my post got mad. However, both would have had every right to be upset if my words had been intentionally chosen for racial connotations, which would then make them slurs. As it is, they were unfortunately chosen based on circumstances.

 

You are probably right as to what would have happened here on BGP, had someone used that phrase. The problem is that we can't read each other's tone and particularly here in the P/R forum, we seem to be (dem/rep, con/lib alike) a little higher strung, and thus, a bit more reactionary. However, I dare say that if I had made posts similar to what I said in my examples, about Black Monday or about the comment that I made to the football player that was black, without the additional details, then some might have taken offense.

 

The problem with Rather's comment is that we really DON'T know his intent. Is it a circumstantial coincidence? Or is it intentional? Since I know of no other similar offense and he has explained what he meant, I personally will give him the benefit of the doubt...this time. The same would hold true if Sarah Palin had made the same comment. There are plenty of other reasons not to like her.

 

I agree that we don't know the intent Rather had with his comment. I didn't think it was a big deal. I disagree that you or the biased media would even begin to give Sarah Palin (or any other leading conservative) "the benefit of the doubt" if she had made the same comment. If Rather had ever been drug through the mud as Palin had, I'm sure you find "plenty of reasons to not like him".

 

The title of this thread is "Where's the outrage over this" and I think it's author was being somewhat sarcastic...Pointing to the hypocrisy by the media and liberals. There shouldn't be any outrage over the comment, no matter who says it. That just isn't how it goes though.

[/b]

 

I agree that we don't know the intent Rather had with his comment. I didn't think it was a big deal. I disagree that you or the biased media would even begin to give Sarah Palin (or any other leading conservative) "the benefit of the doubt" if she had made the same comment. If Rather had ever been drug through the mud as Palin had, I'm sure you find "plenty of reasons to not like him".

 

The title of this thread is "Where's the outrage over this" and I think it's author was being somewhat sarcastic...Pointing to the hypocrisy by the media and liberals. There shouldn't be any outrage over the comment, no matter who says it. That just isn't how it goes though.

 

I didn't say anything about the media. I only mentioned MY personal opinion, as I don't care what the media says.

 

As to a Palin vs. Rather comparison, if he were a politician with her opinions and positions, you'd be correct.

I didn't say anything about the media. I only mentioned MY personal opinion, as I don't care what the media says.

 

As to a Palin vs. Rather comparison, if he were a politician with her opinions and positions, you'd be correct.

 

 

Rather was a politician with opinions & positions his whole career...In disguise.

[/b]

 

I agree that we don't know the intent Rather had with his comment. I didn't think it was a big deal. I disagree that you or the biased media would even begin to give Sarah Palin (or any other leading conservative) "the benefit of the doubt" if she had made the same comment. If Rather had ever been drug through the mud as Palin had, I'm sure you find "plenty of reasons to not like him".

 

The title of this thread is "Where's the outrage over this" and I think it's author was being somewhat sarcastic...Pointing to the hypocrisy by the media and liberals. There shouldn't be any outrage over the comment, no matter who says it. That just isn't how it goes though.

Ding, Ding, Ding, we have a winner! :thumb: