Posted on 12/03/2004 7:08:05 AM PST by Stew Padasso
Disgusting.
Joint Republican Statement
As Republicans elected, both currently and in the past, by the citizens of our community, we could not idly stand by when statements made by a member of our party vary so distinctly from our political philosophy and the foundations of our party's tenets.
We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, built on the expectation of racial equality and tolerance and a belief in the strength of individual responsibility. Bill James made generalized moral judgments that we dismiss as inflammatory, demeaning and inconsistent with our efforts to uplift all citizens through economic vitality and individual opportunity. To broadly condemn any race or ethnic background violates our sense of morality and justice, and we fully and completely censure Mr. James' comments. We reaffirm our commitment to fairness and individual respect and pledge our collective energy to seek solutions to the complex issues facing our community in a positive manner.
Respectfully
Stan Campbell Edna Chirico-Huber Tom Cox Carla DuPuy Phil Gerdes Ken Harris Peter Keber John Lassiter Don Lochman Pat McCrory Ralph McMillan Pat Mumford Ed McMahan Ed Peacock Dan Ramirez Ruth Samuelson John Tabor Bill Brawley Richard Vinroot Velva W. Woollen
Sigh.
And, if they never correct "their own" -- this translates to "no leadership".
It would be interesting if an enterprising individual were to identify examples of statements by these enlightened persons that might be considered insensitive to the self-steem of any "groups", whether such groups were "dominant" or "subordinate".
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20041207.shtml
Blue America: The land of the easily offended
Dennis Prager (archive)
December 7, 2004 | Print | Send
Commentators on our country explain our blue-red division in many ways -- liberal-conservative; secular-religious; North-South; coasts-heartland; singles-married with children.
I propose one more explanation: the easily offended-the not so easily offended.
With the acknowledgment that there are many individual exceptions, a major defining characteristic of modern-day liberalism is the ease with which liberals take offense personally and/or on behalf of others.
Liberals regularly portray as offended women, African Americans, Jews, American Indians, gays and every other group liberals declare a minority, i.e., any group that votes Democrat -- no group that votes Republican, such as Mormons, Cuban Americans and Vietnamese Americans, is considered a "minority." All other groups are constantly warned that almost anything they say that is not patronizing of those groups is offensive (and therefore subject to litigation).
Having given thousands of lectures across the country and on all seven continents (yes, Antarctica, too) over the past 30 years, I can vouch for the personal-offense element. I am continually astounded at how often members of the audience (usually liberal women) will say they are offended by something I said, when what they really mean is that they don't agree with me.
It is most unlikely that conservative men or women speak that way -- saying, "I am offended" -- when they hear liberal speakers.
For one thing, conservatives are so used to being labeled as stupid, bigoted, ignorant, racist, homophobic, sexist, insensitive and intolerant that it is almost impossible to offend them. Moreover, the culture does not allow them to feel offended, since they are not an officially designated minority.
For another, liberal positions are far more emotion-based than reason-based.
To cite but one of many examples, take the widely held liberal slogan "War is not the answer." It is pure irrationality. War has ended more evil than anything the left has ever thought of. In the last 60 years alone, it ended Nazism and the Holocaust; it saved half of Korea from genocide; it kept Israel from national extinction and a second Holocaust; it saved Finland from becoming a Stalinist totalitarian state; and according to most of the people who put "War is not the answer" stickers on their bumpers, it saved Bosnian Muslims from ethnic cleansing.
The list of irrational, feelings-based liberal positions is almost as long as the list of contemporary liberal positions. The relevant point here is that people who take positions based on feelings will of necessity take disagreement more personally and feel offended more often than others.
Liberals' claims of being offended themselves or on behalf of a selected group are almost endless.
Liberal Jews and non-Jews claim that "Merry Christmas" offends Jews and other non-Christians. That 90 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas is of no importance to the easily offended.
Liberal blacks and other liberals see racism almost everywhere in America. To cite a typical example, the absence of black musicians in major orchestras has frequently been named as an example of white racism, despite the fact that many orchestras audition musicians behind a curtain. To non-liberals, the reason probably lies in the fact that few black kids learn to play the oboe or viola. And the sad result of liberals taking offense at so much white behavior is that many whites now talk very guardedly and unnaturally to blacks.
Liberal American Indian spokesmen and other liberals regularly tell us how offensive Indian names of sports teams are. The latest polls show that most Indians have no problem with such names, but liberals are still offended on their behalf. To make the point of how offensive the name "Indians" is for the Cleveland baseball team, one liberal caller once asked me, "How would you feel if a team were named 'Jews'?" I told him that it would be a great day in Jewish history -- for 3,000 years, Jews have been looking for fans.
Part of America remains the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. An almost equally large part is now the Land of the Easily Offended and the Home of the Hypersensitive. Which land we become is a big part of the second American civil war we are fighting.
©2004 Creators Syndicate
as with all leeches.....
My reply is B.S.!! They aren't really offended, they use the pretense of being offended for personal/political gain only. Since they have no moral values, how can they be offended?
They are "offended" when something happens they don't like, but they have no problem offending others, so being non-offensive is not important to them, simply winning at any cost is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.