Lets see, Letterman makes a comment about her daughter that, if he had made
it about mine I would have had a piece of his hide. She calls him on it.
That is insulting him. Tis a strange world we have come to.
target because of her extreme views anyway. The thing that galls me is
everytime somebody doesn't like a joke, they want to fire somebody or censor
It wa a joke. And good or bad, they all can't be good, it is still just a
joke. The joke police are incredibly scary. They don't like a joke and all
of a sudden, they want bllod. I can laugh at a joke, I can groan at a joke,
but I don't think we need or would appreciate the joke police. It is
censorship controlled by extremist wackos.
I know Letterman is a comic of sorts. And I would not censor him or
anything. I am just giving my opinion that by attacking the (I believe
teenage) daughter of a legit target he went just a bit too far. End of
comment. Anything said of Palin within the limits of our US laws is
fine with me. As with all politicians. Now how can we get rid of the
120 or so scummy NY State senators?
Strongly agree and to add, I'm willing to pet Palin, and the butt end
victims of other jokes, will be laughing their asses off when Letterman or
the others, joke about someone else in the same fashion. Hypocrisy is a
major player within the whiners.
The bottom line is simple, they are mere words. If it's true, it bothers a
person. If it's not, why should it.
No. It wasn't a joke. He may have called it a joke after the fact, but
it was an insult pure and simple. And Palin wasn't the target of the
insult, it was her teenage daughter. It went far beyond the limits for
a joke and Letterman deserves far more consequences for the insult
than he received.
I agree with Deb, had it been my daughter Letterman insulted on
national TV, blood would have flowed.
Does that mean you would have flowing blood to all who would insult you
and/or your family? Ask yourself....is it true?
It's overly sensitive to worry about mere words. Remember..."sticks and
stones.....", seriously, why would any person allow words to upset them
unless they are already uptight or extremely sensitive and unless they are
true and even then, who cares.
There are far too many uptight people in this society who want actions taken
against every little word spoken in a negative connotation. They all act as
if it's the end of their lives and they can no longer step out of the house.
Let's get real. People are raising a bunch of sissies when they whine about
some pathetic insult and even moreso when they try to take legal action
against it. The most important part sensitive people forget is to "consider
Seriously, many people need to grow a spine.
I don't agree with that, it's whether there was malice behind the source.
Anybody can be an idiot at a certain time and place (god knows I'm guilty of
that), so maybe the source was just being his regular idiot self. But, if
there was ill intent behind something then 'blood' might be appropriate.
Most people of reasonable intelligence can determine whether malice was
intended and guide their actions accordingly.
I didn't see the Palin/Leterman tetatet, so I don't know if Letterman was
just trying to crack a joke or not. Maybe he was just being his expected
regular idiot self, maybe not.
Someone being their normal "idiot self" would simply increase the reason for
ignoring, wouldn't you think? Obviously, someone who's constantly an idiot
would have no stature due to that reputation. Therefore, even moreso to
consider the source.
What ill intent can become of mere words? Slander? That's against the law
and if not true, can then be proven, which then, would possibly be
justification of a lawsuit, which would hurt a person more than a beating.
Letterman's career is based on comediac performances. Of course his attempts
in front of an audience are mostly jokes, that's what he does to MANY MANY
I agree there are too many aggrieved individuals who are eager to find
slights in the most innocent of phrasing as in: "Sometimes a BLACK man is
the BEST man for the cotton'-pickin' job!"*
The test should be in the intent of the speaker, not the sensitivity of the
Agreed there are too many who want "action taken" and not enough like the OP
who, himself, "will take action."
Agreed. The way insults will stop is not by legal action; insults will stop
when the person making the insult gets the every-lovin' shit beat out of
them. If the insulter is a high-profile person - like Letterman or Perez
Hilton - the insults may stop sooner.
Agreed. Plus be ready to rise up in immediate righteous indignation and take
steps. Remember the adage: "All it takes for evil to triumph is to let the
* Infamous utterance by a former Governor of Arizona.
Nope. No need. You want to piss off a person who insults, laugh at them. By
allowing them to get under your skin with mere words, you are allowing them
the satisfaction of accomplishing their insulting goal. By disallowing them
to get under your skin, you are disabling them of accomplishing their goal.
But even so, with intent, one should still consider the source and consider
I disagree. Beating may sometimes stop the insulter from insulting you or
family, but it doesn't stop them from insulting someone or group of weaker
To each his own, but I will view the beater as the weaker link and incapable
of intellectual defense. The insulter may be bloody, but he/she still won
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.