# Now that we're bombing Syria............



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

.......it's only a matter of time til some start lacing up their boots. :watching:

I just hope to Hell that the ************* have the stomach for it and don't back out after a few days.


----------



## EvilTwin (Sep 4, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> .......it's only a matter of time til some start lacing up their boots. :watching:
> 
> I just hope to Hell that the ************* have the stomach for it and don't back out after a few days.


There is already 1600 advisors there...


----------



## EvilTwin (Sep 4, 2014)

Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are also engaging the enemy with coordinated air strikes in Syria


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

EvilTwin said:


> There is already 1600 advisors there...


Yeah I know, but according to Obummer, they are not combat troops. Their roles there are limited.


----------



## EvilTwin (Sep 4, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> Yeah I know, but according to Obummer, they are not combat troops. Their roles there are limited.


I can only speak from my experience, I was a Military Advisor in Vietnam from 65 to 67. And I am a combat veteran, retiring in 1977. FYI, we were never in Cambodia either.... . ask the State Department. 
Unless something has changed... being an advisor has always been do as I do... If the 1600 advisor are in a combat zone, they are not exempt from combat.. because there is no such thing.


----------



## slayer61 (Aug 4, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> .......it's only a matter of time til some start lacing up their boots. :watching:
> 
> I just hope to Hell that the ************* have the stomach for it and don't back out after a few days.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> .......it's only a matter of time til some start lacing up their boots. :watching:
> 
> I just hope to Hell that the ************* have the stomach for it and don't back out after a few days.


Can we dispense with the "************" BS...? Please? It ceased to be funny sometime after GW1.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> Can we dispense with the "************" BS...? Please? It ceased to be funny sometime after GW1.


Would the term desert dweller make you feel better?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> Would the term desert dweller make you feel better?


Strangely, "Arabs" has always worked when talking about Arabs... 

But you get an A+ for NOT calling them towel-heads.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

Why am I more offended by the PC police than the PC criminals?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> Strangely, "Arabs" has always worked when talking about Arabs...
> 
> But you get an A+ for NOT calling them *towel-heads*.


That term was my 2nd choice, but I went ahead and used my 3rd choice instead.

If you're going to be PC while on this forum, you might as well give us all a heads-up right now.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

TurboHonda said:


> Why am I more offended by the PC police than the PC criminals?


Because the PC police are Lib'ruls, and the PC criminals aren't.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> That term was my 2nd choice, but I went ahead and used my 3rd choice instead.
> 
> If you're going to be PC while on this forum, you might as well give us all a heads-up right now.


Hey! I have a reputation to uphold here - gimme a break!


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> Hey! I have a reputation to uphold here - gimme a break!


I'd just like to know, so I can decide whether or not, I need to put an ** *by your username.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> That term was my 2nd choice, but I went ahead and used my 3rd choice instead.
> 
> If you're going to be PC while on this forum, you might as well give us all a heads-up right now.


BTW, please note that I left your "Obummer" alone - mainly because I may occasionally refer to W as "Shrubbie."


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> BTW, please note that I left your "Obummer" alone - mainly because I may occasionally refer to W as "Shrubbie."


I was under the impression, that everyone called him that.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> I'd just like to know, so I can decide whether or not, I need to put an ** *by your username.


You gotta do what you gotta do. I'm not going to try to influence that.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> I was under the impression, that everyone called him that.


Obama or Shrubbie?


----------



## EvilTwin (Sep 4, 2014)

The term " Political correctness ", is something the country should frown upon, be embarrassed about... its a negative... Political correctness is what allows what we all know to be true, to be disguised as something it isn't.
Political correctness is just an excuse for lying about reality.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

EvilTwin said:


> The term " Political correctness ", is something the country should frown upon, be embarrassed about... its a negative... Political correctness is what allows what we all know to be true, to be disguised as something it isn't.
> Political correctness is just an excuse for lying about reality.


So, are you for, or against, political correctness? Couldn't really tell. And is calling an Arab an Arab somehow lying about reality? All confused here....

I'm not exactly PC - I just lived long enough in another country to dislike the way people label others that are not of their nationality. Be it Aussies using "bloody Pom!" or Brits using "fcuking Yank!" it just annoys me. Using names like "*************" is no better than using the "N"-word, IMNSFHO


----------



## EvilTwin (Sep 4, 2014)

I hate political correctness... when it clouds the realities of life. Tactlessness and Political correctness are two different things...


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

EvilTwin said:


> I hate political correctness... when it clouds the realities of life. Tactlessness and Political correctness are two different things...


Basically - Yes, I agree (assuming you mean "tactlessness and political INcorrectness"). Where to draw the line between the two is the real issue. I am against (regardless of designation) calling a whole race of people by a derogatory term. Especially those who (at present) have said they will help us out.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

Nice. They're gonna help us with their problem. :?


----------



## EvilTwin (Sep 4, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Basically - Yes, I agree (assuming you mean "tactlessness and political INcorrectness"). Where to draw the line between the two is the real issue. I am against (regardless of designation) calling a whole race of people by a derogatory term. Especially those who (at present) have said they will help us out.


Right now there are five Arab Nations sending their fighters into Syria to help take out this threat... but also notably, Syria has for the most part turned off their sophisticated radar tracking systems and missile defense systems... Which in my interpretation is a green light to enter Syrian air space without officially acknowledging it to other Arab Nations and the world.

The issue of Political correctness toward those who want to " Get over on the Man " those who want to make them self other than Americans, and want to throw out the race card to gain some advantage because of " Political Correctness ". That disgrace of a Memorial for the " Thug " they called Michael Brown, and all those brothers, looking to gain some advantage, like the advantage of robbing and looting their own neighbors in the name of Michael Brown, 
Now" that " is a testament to the real memorial of Michael Browns death.. an excuse to loot and riot, and as some of the pictures and video showed, they did it with smiles on their face.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> So, are you for, or against, political correctness? Couldn't really tell. And is calling an Arab an Arab somehow lying about reality? All confused here....
> 
> I'm not exactly PC - I just lived long enough in another country to dislike the way people label others that are not of their nationality. Be it Aussies using "bloody Pom!" or Brits using "fcuking Yank!" it just annoys me. Using names like "*************" is no better than using the "N"-word, IMNSFHO


Can't say that Yank - with any preceding adjective annoys me (it just indicates impact) and '************' seems relatively innocuous too, at least compared to '***********'. In general, all of these pejoratives are a class of 'tools of ignorance'. If one can't convey enough disdain with the legitimate term, e.g. 'Arab', then maybe the disdain isn't justified, eh?


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> So, are you for, or against, political correctness? Couldn't really tell. And is calling an Arab an Arab somehow lying about reality? All confused here....
> 
> I'm not exactly PC - I just lived long enough in another country to dislike the way people label others that are not of their nationality. Be it Aussies using "bloody Pom!" or Brits using "fcuking Yank!" it just annoys me. Using names like "*************" is no better than using the "N"-word, IMNSFHO


I had no problem understanding what he was saying. Of course, I try my best *NOT* to be PC. I tend to equate being PC to being a bull-shitter.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> I had no problem understanding what he was saying. Of course, I try my best *NOT* to be PC.


Do tell ... 



paratrooper said:


> I tend to equate being PC to being a bull-shitter.


Whereas I equate purposefully not being PC to being a bull-shitter. Hmmm...


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> Do tell ...
> 
> Whereas I equate purposefully not being PC to being a bull-shitter. Hmmm...


Granted, there are times and places when it's necessary to be PC, for whatever the reason. I have no trouble differentiating those times and places.

However, an internet forum is not one of them, for the most part. If a mod steps up and tells me differently, I will then comply.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> Granted, there are times and places when it's necessary to be PC, for whatever the reason. I have no trouble differentiating those times and places.
> 
> However, an internet forum is not one of them, for the most part. If a mod steps up and tells me differently, I will then comply.


I'll kind of agree, but with a caveat. If a forum has people from both sides of the aisle, then it is nice to be careful. If it is all 2A, 'Murkin Gun-nuts, then maybe...


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

paratrooper:


> ......it's only a matter of time til some start lacing up their boots.


It's inevitable! I just wish these clowns in charge would not announce to our enemy what their plans are and when. Could you imagine what would have happened on D-Day?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> paratrooper:
> 
> It's inevitable! I just wish these clowns in charge would not announce to our enemy what their plans are and when. Could you imagine what would have happened on D-Day?


"These clowns in charge" have been doing it through the last 4 administrations. You'd think they'd learn.

Of course, the intelligence community spends hours every week on the news telling terrorists how to achieve their ends by publicising spurious "threats" that the BGs never thought of before. <sigh>


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> Granted, there are times and places when it's necessary to be PC, for whatever the reason. I have no trouble differentiating those times and places.
> 
> However, an internet forum is not one of them, for the most part. If a mod steps up and tells me differently, I will then comply.


Personally, I often don't know what the PC attitude is for a given situation. So I just do my own hillbilly thing and see what the proverbial chips do.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Politics and religion kill me. I can only contribute so much until I feel it coming back on me. 

I'm toeing the line, so it's time to back off, turn around, and head in another direction. :smt083

I failed to mention that I'm not an expert by any means on either.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> Politics and religion kill me. I can only contribute so much until I feel it coming back on me.
> 
> I'm toeing the line, so it's time to back off, turn around, and head in another direction. :smt083


Puh-LEEZE don't get me started on religion...


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Sail Design:


> "These clowns in charge" have been doing it through the last 4 administrations. You'd think they'd learn.


Indeed they have! I just saw the before and after picture's I really didn't see much difference? Of course they're probably not showing everything, but why choose these? Doesn't instill much confidence. It wouldn't surprise me if the terrorists publicly be-head another captive just to show the world that these air strikes will not stop them. Ground troops anyone? I think that it is inevitable.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> Sail Design:
> 
> Indeed they have! I just saw the before and after picture's I really didn't see much difference? Of course they're probably not showing everything, but why choose these? Doesn't instill much confidence. It wouldn't surprise me if the terrorists publicly be-head another captive just to show the world that these air strikes will not stop them. Ground troops anyone? I think that it is inevitable.


Totally agree on the "inevitable" part. I think BO is trying to involve enough other nations that the boots will be predominantly "other" countries' boots.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

The don't bomb us b/c we're free and rich. They bomb us b/c we are over there. WE NEED TO STAY OUT!!!


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> The don't bomb us b/c we're free and rich. They bomb us b/c we are over there. WE NEED TO STAY OUT!!!


Agreed ion the all-caps part - but I feel they bomb us because we think we know better than they do how to run their countries - and then we find out we don't.....


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Well, that is why we are there...trying to spread our brand of corrupt democracy at gun point, while the whole world knows we are a laughing stock. What we're really trying to do is gain strategic footholds so that we can influence business.


----------



## EvilTwin (Sep 4, 2014)

If we spent all the money we poured into the middle east, here in the US and put up a 20 ft high electrified fence. And not allow anyone in, those of us who actually live here would have ten times the quality of life, that we have now. we could invest in education , and jobs, and get rid of the thugs and focus on this country instead of all the countries we try to instill our will . Our taxes would be cut in half instead of building multi million and billion dollars weapons of destruction. IM all for kicking ass.. but we spend so much money in other countries and in most cases, we get little to no return on our investment.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

EvilTwin said:


> If we spent all the money we poured into the middle east, here in the US and put up a 20 ft high electrified fence. And not allow anyone in, those of us who actually live here would have ten times the quality of life, that we have now. we could invest in education , and jobs, and get rid of the thugs and focus on this country instead of all the countries we try to instill our will . Our taxes would be cut in half instead of building multi million and billion dollars weapons of destruction. IM all for kicking ass.. but we spend so much money in other countries and in most cases, we get little to no return on our investment.


That looks like a colorful description of isolationism. Historically, that won't work. Strong self-restraint at the national level might though; sort of semi-isolationism. Tell those corporations that moved their production overseas to bring it back or get all the way out.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

hillman said:


> That looks like a colorful description of isolationism. Historically, that won't work. Strong self-restraint at the national level might though; sort of semi-isolationism. Tell those corporations that moved their production overseas to bring it back or get all the way out.


It isn't isolationism. It is actually following the founders roadmap for prosperity. When we engage in foreign trade, rather than forcing democracy at gunpoint, we are not isolating anything or anyone. We are to have a strong NATIONAL DEFENSE, not an international police gestapo for thugs in DC.


----------



## EvilTwin (Sep 4, 2014)

We as a Nation can not even keep our own country free of thugs. we all walk around the land of the free and the home of the brave, looking over our shoulder for bad guys, and making sure our personal defense weapon is placed strategically on our body. Its a shame we allow this to go on and paint it with political correctness.. to smooth it over saying these thugs are just kids doing what kids do... for anyone to paint someone like Trayvon Martin a good boy or Michael Brown is insane... these two kids were doing and being the thugs their culture taught them. One look at either of their face book pages would show who they really are..Thugs

Why is it that political pressure paint people like snoop dog as a good guy, when he admits to braking the law and smoking dope with his kids.. yet I see persons of political influence sucking up to him..Katie Couric, Barbara Walters, politicians all the way up to the President and people like him... why do we allow Gangsta rap? Video games that glorify shooting of cops..etc..

Why would anyone feel sorry for the loss of a thug like Trayvon martin.. why?? because of political correctness... no one I know felt bad about the loss of Trayvon martin. yet peop0le from all walks of politics and TV professed that his killing was sad... and that some how George Zimmerman was the bad guy. " He was acquitted ", yet he has been subjected to political correctness, that " get over community ", we all know, tries to use as a lever, no matter how twisted it is. And they have been successful in getting over for way too many years.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

Muck Muck is the politically correct term.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

EvilTwin said:


> We as a Nation can not even keep our own country free of thugs. we all walk around the land of the free and the home of the brave, looking over our shoulder for bad guys, and making sure our personal defense weapon is placed strategically on our body.
> 
> <snippage>


No - some of us are quite happy with no weapon bigger than a pocket knife. Others are more paranoid....


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

There will be no "boots" on the ground buy stock in rebock, burkenstock, may be some air jordans.


----------



## Hauptmann (Aug 2, 2014)

*Political Correctness = No Guts*



EvilTwin said:


> The term " Political correctness ", is something the country should frown upon, be embarrassed about... its a negative... Political correctness is what allows what we all know to be true, to be disguised as something it isn't.
> Political correctness is just an excuse for lying about reality.


I agree. Your post underscores the reason there isn't a single *White Students Union *on any high school or college campus in America. Why? Because it would be shouted out of existence for being * "racist". * Yet *Black Student Unions, Hispanic Students Unions*, etc. proliferate. Nobody dares call *THEM *racist--though by definition they are--because to do so would not be _politically correct_. Political correctness dictates that only white people can be called racist.

The extent to which we lie to ourselves astounds me.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

EvilTwin:


> Why is it that political pressure paint people like snoop dog as a good guy, when he admits to braking the law and smoking dope with his kids.. yet I see persons of political influence sucking up to him..Katie Couric, Barbara Walters, politicians all the way up to the President and people like him... why do we allow Gangsta rap? Video games that glorify shooting of cops..etc.


Very well stated! If Hitler were still alive they'd be sucking up to him. Ever see the Che Guevara T-shirts?



> When Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., chastised celebrity couple Jay-Z and Beyonce in a TV interview for their recent trip to Cuba, he especially criticized Jay-Z for his adoration of Che Guevara.
> 
> "I think Jay-Z needs to get informed," Rubio said. "One of his heroes is Che Guevara. Che Guevara was a racist. Che Guevara was a racist that wrote extensively about the superiority of white Europeans over people of African descent, so he should inform himself [about] the guy that he's propping up."
> 
> Jay-Z, Carlos Santana, and Johnny Depp - who have all been spotted in Guevara t-shirts in the last decade - have, as Rubio correctly noted, largely ignored the issue. ---www.thecommentator.com


Stupid ignorant people, yet they have power and influence on people's lives.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

EvilTwin said:


> <snip-de-dip>
> 
> why do we allow Gangsta rap? Video games that glorify shooting of cops..etc..
> 
> <more snippage>


While you've been hard defending the Second amendment (and rightly so) it may have escaped your notice that there is one before that, namely the First (Duh!) Amendment. Give it a read some time.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Many only seek to protect their own pet agenda. Unfortunately, it is just the way of the world and human nature.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Many only seek to protect their own pet agenda. Unfortunately, it is just the way of the world and human nature.


'Zactly.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I found myself agreeing up until the "we allow rap"...then I thought huh? You can't restrict and oppress one and expect freedom, liberty and respect from another. It just doesn't work that way.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> I found myself agreeing up until the "we allow rap"...then I thought huh? You can't restrict and oppress one and expect freedom, liberty and respect from another. It just doesn't work that way.


Still very much on the fence about Trayvon M. Zimmerman isn't someone I connect with based on his press, but Trayvon wasn't exactly lily-white either. The whole Brown thing is SO riddled with press bias and inaccuracies that we'll probably never know what really happened.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Truth on both. I do place the blame for Martin's death as much on Zimmerman as I do on Martin, but the fact is Zimmerman had every right to get out of his car and look around. Martin was not the scared little saint just trying to get home b/c the boogy man was after him. He was on the phone talking to some girl before he attacked Zimmerman out of the dark. That is not the act of a scared man. A scared man would have hightaled his butt home! 

Brown was a thug, plain and simple. I delieve he did indeed attack and charge that police officer just as the reports have said. I heard the unintentional witness explain what he saw, and I think that is probably exactly how it went down. No, he was no gentle giant. He was a thug. That said, the biggest vilain in it all is the media, if you ask me.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

As the saying goes "You can't shout fire in a crowded movie theater". How does this differ from music, speech or video's that incite or encourage violence? Someone please enlighten me. 


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. - See more at: 1st Amendment


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

GCBHM said:


> I found myself agreeing up until the "we allow rap"...then I thought huh? You can't restrict and oppress one and expect freedom, liberty and respect from another. It just doesn't work that way.


Agreed. Giving away the other guy's rights is never a good idea. That's one reason we're totally opressed today.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> While you've been hard defending the Second amendment (and rightly so) it may have escaped your notice that there is one before that, namely the First (Duh!) Amendment. Give it a read some time.


Isn't political correctness just another form of censorship.

You libs are always quick to trample these amendments when it suits your need or when they deem it "ok"


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

rustygun said:


> Isn't political correctness just another form of censorship.
> 
> You libs are always quick to trample these amendments when it suits your need or when they deem it "ok"


Strangely, that's what "us libs" say about you GOP-ers. Neither sides' press do a very good job, except when it comes to muck-slinging.

PC-ness isn't so much censorship, as a modification of the Right to Free Speech so as not to offend. It's pretty close, either way, but it has the advantage of allowing you to think what you want without having to admit it.


----------



## rustygun (Apr 8, 2013)

Sounds very complicated.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

rustygun said:


> Sounds very complicated.


Not touching that with a 10-foot pole - too big a cone of fire.....


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

rustygun:


> Isn't political correctness just another form of censorship.


It sure is! The media does it all the time, they claim that they also have the right not to print or report on anything that they do not agree with. I might have missed it but I couldn't find any coverage on newly revealed allegations regrading Benghazi or the hearings held last week regarding those allegations on CNN. Believe me I tried.



> Despite being officially cleared of wrongdoing by an internal review board, Hillary Clinton's staffers have been accused of separating potentially damaging documents from material sent to a panel investigating the Benghazi, Libya attack, a former top official proclaimed on Monday.
> Read more at Did Hillary Clinton Staffers Cover Up Damning Benghazi Documents ?


Couldn't possibly be that it could damage her political aspirations?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> rustygun:
> 
> It sure is! The media does it all the time, they claim that they also have the right not to print or report on anything that they do not agree with. I might have missed it but I couldn't find any coverage on newly revealed allegations regrading Benghazi or the hearings held last week on CNN. Believe me I tried.
> 
> Couldn't possibly be that it could damage her political aspirations?


That wasn't PC-ness - that was plain old political untruth, if true (wait... huh?).... Sadly, every party does it while defaming the other for doing it.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:
I'm not really referring to political parties. I just tried to use that as an example of political bias. Obviously, each will disparage and insult the other. That's just politics. It's the media's job to report the news, not to pick and choose what it is that they deem newsworthy. It then becomes propaganda for either one side or the other or to suit their agenda. It is their duty to truthfully report the news, not make the news. This is all a form of censorship and in my opinion falls under the category of political correctness. Just one recent example: They tried to paint a picture of Michael Brown as just another happy go lucky kid skipping down the street, elated on his acceptance to college. Then all of a sudden some racist white cop decided to, for no apparent reason question him and blow him away. But it just so happened that this "gentle giant" as the media portrayed him, had just robbed a convenience store. Questions still remain if the cop knew about the robbery. At any rate the cop was already "tried and convicted" by the media and riots ensued. For the most part the media wants us to believe that all white people are racist and that all blacks are victims of white racism. They thrive on this and it is not politically correct to think otherwise.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> I'm not really referring to political parties. I just tried to use that as an example of political bias. Obviously, each will disparage and insult the other. That's just politics. It's the media's job to report the news, not to pick and choose what it is that they deem newsworthy. It then becomes propaganda for either one side or the other or to suit their agenda. It is their duty to truthfully report the news, not make the news. This is all a form of censorship and in my opinion falls under the category of political correctness. Just one recent example: They tried to paint a picture of Michael Brown as just another happy go lucky kid skipping down the street, elated on his acceptance to college. Then all of a sudden some racist white cop decided to, for no apparent reason question him and blow him away. But it just so happened that this "gentle giant" as the media portrayed him, had just robbed a convenience store. Questions still remain if the cop knew about the robbery. At any rate the cop was already "tried and convicted" by the media and riots ensued. For the most part the media wants us to believe that all white people are racist and that all blacks are victims of white racism. They thrive on this and it is not politically correct to think otherwise.


Not arguing the press' bias one little bit. But I don't think of that as "political correctness" - quite the opposite. 

Political correctness is calling someone a chairperson when they are obviously a chairwoman, or a chairman. it is the stupid little things that denigrate in the interests of NOT denigrating. Calling someone "Ms" when they are married and proud of being "Mrs" - referring to someone being a "person of color" when they think of themselves as Black, or Indian - why are Chinese people not "People of color" if we regard them as yellow-skinned in comparison to us? (who should also be "people of color" because we are pink, not white)

All that krap. Newspapers lying and mis-reporting is simply bad journalism, and "freedom of speech of the press" is simply a euphemism for "we're going to bias the sh!t out of our coverage."


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> Political correctness is calling someone a chairperson when they are obviously a chairwoman, or a chairman. it is the stupid little things that denigrate in the interests of NOT denigrating. Calling someone "Ms" when they are married and proud of being "Mrs" - referring to someone being a "person of color" when they think of themselves as Black, or Indian - why are Chinese people not "People of color" if we regard them as yellow-skinned in comparison to us? (who should also be "people of color" because we are pink, not white)


Can't argue that. But I also see media bias as a form of "political correctness".


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> Can't argue that. But I also see media bias as a form of "political correctness".


I must be wearing the wrong glasses today.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

desertman said:


> paratrooper:
> 
> It's inevitable! I just wish these clowns in charge would not announce to our enemy what their plans are and when. Could you imagine what would have happened on D-Day?


Good point, announcing our plans to our enemy is very wrong and puts our troops in more of a possible harms way situation.
But then again are we that ignorant to expose our plans?
I don't believe we are that careless, so I conclude that the media information we receive is not the whole truth.


----------

