Posted on 05/02/2005 6:00:13 AM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Now that is debatable.....
It is fine if people liked it or didn't, those that didn't shouldn't be attacked. I see the gang is showing up in full force. However, it is still small.
I believe that freedom of expression on a public forum comes with responsibility. If my comments hurt the president, then the discussion stops. Period. But I'm disappointed to see the attacks coming from all directions.
You seem to have lost the focus of my post. You seem confused.
It would be nice if you commented on what I said.
I'd like to think even Judge Ginsburg saw the humor in it since she hasn't complained yet. ;o)
Sure they do, but they don't have the right to represent themselves for speaking for ALL Christians.
typical of the usual suspects.
You have some major issues.
I can verify that most of the people defending the First Lady here ARE Christians, and cannot do the same with those who are calling her vulgar names........
It's truly amazing to me.
The blindness to the irony and absurdity that made the routine so hilarious is mind boggling.
When someone asked yesterday what kind of a woman would it make Lynne Cheney to go to Chippendale's .........I quipped, a woman I would like to have a drink with..........wrong answer!!!!! LOL!
It's okay, Howlin. When we get to Heaven, we'll know who the most self-rightous ones are: they'll have their doors shut so they'll never suspect they're not the only ones up there.
The joke about the Texas Chain Saw Massacre was funny.
The joke about her mother-in-law was funny.
The joke about Kennebunkport and Crawford was funny.
The joke about the president's inability to pronounce "nuclear" was flat-out hilarious.
Even the joke about George's being a graduate of Yale/Andover, thus knowing nothing about ranching, was funny...until the last line. That joke had already had a punch line, and the additional obscene image was gratuitous and demeaning.
I don't think anyone has a problem with a wife's gently skewering her husband at a roast. But there is such a thing as getting too personal, too sarcastic, too bawdy, and too crude --especially when one is a First Lady who is giving a public performance.
Some here seem to want conservatives to act "hip" and to ape the Left in order to dispel a fuddy-duddy image.
My answer to that one can be funny AND have a good sense of humor, without crossing the line into MTV-style humor --which I agree, isn't even funny.
And the horse joke wasn't the only thing that made me uneasy about the First Lady's performance.
I thought she got off to a bad start with her too-personal jibe at the president, calling her husband "Mr. Excitement" --a pretty sarcastic thing to say in the context of the all the sexual innuendo about "Desperate Housewives" and Chippendales.
Laura Bush is physically a lovely lady, and unquestionably a vast improvement over her predecessor. But we should remember she was a long-time Democrat, and that she still harbors a lot of sympathy for the public-school-teacher-establishment.
I suspect that some of feminist, anti-male attitudes of that establishment have rubbed off on Laura, and she was out to impress that crowd --at the expense of her husband.
perhaps I would be more sympathetic to those criticizing the First Lady if even one of the comments protesting the "whore" comment would have come from their side of this issue.
A lot of people don't want to acknowledge that, do they?
Day 3? Has this been going on that long?
Well said, Knitting.
If Reagan had run for president after the loonie christians got settled into the party, I doubt he could have been nominated.
No way y'all would have voted for a divorced man who as governor had signed what is still the most liberal abortion law in America and signed it before Roe vs. Wade, not to mention hadn't been inside a church in 20 years, baring weddings, funerals and campaigning.
While he had a strong faith he didn't have near enough religiosity or literalism to satisfy the loony christians.
So9
Morally blind? I beg your pardon. There's nothing worth discussing here.
You bet.
You, sir (and I use the term "sir" loosely) are no gentleman. You prove yourself the male equivalent of what you accuse the First Lady.
Show me where someone said they were speaking for ALL Christians??? No one did.
Good grief, quit harrassing people. If you don't like their comment, move on.
Conclusion: This thread has turned screwy.
Jim is not my fault!! I know know not what I do..controvery again. Don't run this story for a week like the last one...PAAALLEEESE! ;) :(
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.