Comedian Michelle Wolf sparks fury, debate with roast at correspondents' dinner

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke6_37
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
It would be nice to see what Dershowitz actually said
Click to expand...
here’s some of it:

"He’s the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an FBI informer. Those of us in Boston don’t have such a high regard for Mueller because we remember this story. The government had to pay out tens of millions of dollars because Whitey Bulger, a notorious mass murderer, became a government informer against the mafia . . .

“And that’s regarded in Boston of one of the great scandals of modern judicial history. And Mueller was right at the center of it. So, he is not without criticism by people who know him in Boston.”
 
dvdjs said:
How about a source to see all of it.
Click to expand...
Dershowitz has written a number of books. Possibly one or more of them contains “all of it”, whatever that means. You might want to look into that.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Possibly one or more of them contains “all of it”, whatever that means.
Click to expand...
All of it means the “some of it” that you supplied, plus the complementary rest of it.
Will you share your source for these quotes?
 
No, I am asking why this particular incident is so frequently brought up.

Why is this particular incident, put of gazillions of incidents, one which is so frequently brought up?
 
Sheesh, what about Clinton calling people deplorable? What about Obama describing people as bitterly.clinging to guns and religion? And so on.

This is what Chesterton had to say about this sort of this: “Most Eugenists are Euphemists. I mean merely that short words startle them, while long words soothe them. And they are utterly incapable of translating the one into the other, however obviously they mean the same thing. Say to them “The persuasive and even coercive powers of the citizen should enable him to make sure that the burden of longevity in the previous generation does not become disproportionate and intolerable, especially to the females”; say this to them and they will sway slightly to and fro like babies sent to sleep in cradles. Say to them “Murder your mother,” and they sit up quite suddenly. Yet the two sentences, in cold logic, are exactly the same. Say to them “It is not improbable that a period may arrive when the narrow if once useful distinction between the anthropoid homo and the other animals, which has been modified on so many moral points, may be modified also even in regard to the important question of the extension of human diet”; say this to them, and beauty born of murmuring sound will pass into their face. But say to them, in a simple, manly, hearty way “Let’s eat a man!” and their surprise is quite surprising. Yet the sentences say just the same thing.”

Just because most politicians dress their derogations up to make them more palatable to their constituency doesn’t make them any less insulting.
 
Last edited:
Trump was referring to what the man was saying. When I first saw that tape, I didn’t know the reporter was disabled, nor did I gather that from the tape. I have seen exactly that sort of gesture-accompanied comment applied to many fully-able (if that is still all right to say) persons.
 
Says YOU but in my book if the POTUS knows Russia is trying to interfere and does nothing then it must not have been high up on the list of important issues THEN…
 
It was an attempt to win an internet war of words, knowing full well that how it was said was intended to convey a different meaning. At that pint, there is no point in further discussion.

If I said “I can’t these guys in my office” and they happened to be white, one could technically I couldn’t stand white people. Technically, correct I suppose, but stated in the latter to twist and attribute something that isn’t there.

in other words, it is childish.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
in other words, it is childish.
Click to expand...
🤣
You assumed that posters meant something other than they actually said, and proceeded to attack them for it.
Instead of correcting the error, you call them manes for not meaning what you assumed. Now that is fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I did. I’d be willing to bet when someone reads “Trump was mocking a disabled reporter” they know what the intended takeaway from the statement is. No need to discuss further. I am quite comfortable in that assumption, as are most folks reading these boards.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
I am quite comfortable in that assumption, as are most folks reading these boards.
Click to expand...
Many of the Trump fans, maybe most, have a knee-jerk defensiveness and see the worst possible and totally unfair mockery of Trump in every critical statement.

And some may do this to change the story:
  • If he can be found claimed innocent of mocking someone’s disability, there has been a neat deflection from his mocking a person.
  • If he can be excused for used bad, locker room language, there has been a neat deflection from the misogynistic content of his remarks.
  • If he can be excused for just having an affair, there has been a neat deflection from his pursuit of a worker in the porn industry.
The effort to normalize Trump has the inescapable effect of degrading norms of behavior.

Oh, and there are some who apply the “they know what the intended takeaway … is” to Trump’s mockery of a disabled man, to his silence and his measured remarks about white nationalists, etc. They are comfortable too. I think that we would all be better off to stop the mind reading whenever we can just ask.
 
Last edited:
Dr_Meinheimer said:
You’ve already wasted enough of the board’s time. What part of “No need to discuss further” was unclear?
Click to expand...
You are not in control of how anyone spends their time here but your own.
You are not in control of anyone’s posts but your own.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Grandmother is going to have to keep grandson from watching the Democrat mainstream media. They’re the ones who are so taken with porn stars and dirty-mouthed comediennes. And of course, “Trump’s language” is also Dem media repetition of a private conversation they want to make as public as possible.
Click to expand...
and don’t forget the dem obssession with the salacious details of the Russian dossier and the prostitues in the hotel room. even though it is unverified, they can’t help repeating it over and over!
 
I find the opposite, the liberal efforts to demonize Trump the person rather than discuss policy is what is degrading norms of behavior.

Democrats have become the party of Ad Hominem
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top