So much for all that crap about Republicans being for family values
Haley Barbour, former head of the Republican National Committee made that charming remark last week, and this week refused to apologize.
Well, I suppose there is something to be said for sticking to your guns and principles, even if they are incredibly stupid, bigoted and racist.
But it is Mississippi, so that explains a lot.
We need an “un-fuckin’-believeable” smiley.
Has this pustule offered even a hint of a reasonable explanation?
Not that I’m a huge fan of this guy, or rabid right-wingers in general, but what was so bad about this comment? I mean, other than that it was crude. He was basically saying that some kids have horrible home lives. In what way does that undermine the Republican stance on family values?
I think I’m failing to connect the dots on this one.
Speaking of incredibly stupid and bigoted comments would you care to take that last one back?
Marc
Me too.
The last one was supposed to be after tdn’s.
I interpreted it as comparing the Head Start program, not their home lives, unfavorably with hanging out in a whorehouse.
Nice way to misrepresent what he actually said in the topic.
He didn’t say “head start kids would be better off in a …” etc etc. He said SOME would be.
To say that he said “head start kids, etc.” implies that he believes that ALL head start kids would be better off, etc. Not true. Just some of them.
And let’s face it. Some of them probably have home lives so terrible that they WOULD be better off. Not because they’re poor (shit even some rich kids woulda been better off in a whorehouse) but because SOME head start kids probably do have crackhead moms, absentee fathers, abuse, etc.
going on in their homes.
And WTF does this have to do with Republicans? Are you forgetting Democrat Robert Byrd who was assuring us on the radio a couple of years ago that “there are white ******* too?” If you have a problem with Republicans and wanna rail on them, fine, but at least have a legitimate complaint.
What it mainly explains PS is that your mad reading comprehension skillz might need some improvement, and that making a rude pop off remark denigrating an entire state makes you look like an errant jackass. He was praising Head Start though his choice of comparison/contrast illustration could, admittedly, have been considerably better.
Remark by Barbour draws fire from Dems - Clarion Ledger
[sub]
[/sub]
Copyright © 2003, The Clarion-Ledger - Edited to remove copyrighted material, albeit tardily. You should know better, astro. - UB
I’ll say it too. It’s true.
Some Head Start kids would be better off sitting on the piano bench in a whorehouse than at their homes.
What do you have to say to me?
So, he’s saying that poor, underprivledged children would do better at a whorehouse than in their own homes? What kind of “reality tuning” is he on? Yeah, they’re already badly off, let’s compound the problem by exposing them to possible sexual molestation by Johns, or at the very least giving them mental/emotional problems due to the enviroment. :rolleyes:
I think it’s a pretty poor choice of words. If the child is so badly off, put them in foster care or educate the parents so they can properly care for them, don’t make outrageous inflammatory statements. He should get off his ass, and get more funding to help these children if he’s so concerned for them. :dubious: :smack:
Bricker, I don’t think you considered all the implications of such an event. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here. :dubious:
Add the word some to my first sentence. It should read: “So, he’s saying that some poor, underprivledged children would do better at a whorehouse than in their own homes?”
Yes, he’s saying that. And so am I.
Are you saying it’s untrue? Do you believe that, as bad as the whorehouse is likely to be, that NOT ONE of those kids has a WORSE home environment?
If you read all of my post, you would see suggestions that are better than what Barbour did.
I do not doubt, that there are children in terrible home enviroments at this very moment. I don’t doubt that their lives are at risk. I know that children are being molested, beaten, given drugs and alcohol etc.
I don’t think compouding the problem by exposing them to a sexually explicit enviroment (again, in some cases) is a good idea. I don’t think putting them at risk of molestation (again, in some cases) is a good thing. Nor is any of the other unhealthy things that happen regularly in a whorehouse.
See my other post for better solutions.
And I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt Zabali_Clawbane, in hoping that you realize that trying to deconstruct and spin the use of an offhand colloquialism used in contrasting a bad/worse situations into some “outrageous inflammatory” pro-sex abuse manifesto is pretty silly.
Yes, there were plenty of good suggestions.
What of it? If the proposition here is that Barbour failed to say the best thing, then I agree. If the proposition is that Barbour failed to offer a set of useful alternatives, again I agree.
But the proposition I am interested in rebutting is that Barbour’s comments were “bigoted” and “racist.”
Are you really this fucking stupid? He wasn’t calling for a campaign to start sending underprivileged kids to whorehouses. He wasn’t advocating kids growing up in a whorehouse. He wasn’t saying it was solution to the problem. He was trying to fucking make a point.
And yes, my guess is that some underprivileged kids would be better off at a whorehouse.
As for getting more funding to help the children how do you know he hasn’t? Or are you just talking out of your ass?
If you read about the home life of some of these kids, they WOULD have been better off growing up in a whorehouse!
Hell, read about what it was like to have Fred Phelps as a dad. Or Sybil Dorsette’s story.
Jesus.
Here’s another article explaining the context of the remark.
Barbour’s figure of speech was an unusual way of saying just how important Head Start is. If some of the kids have such terrible home situations that they’d be better off in a whorehouse, then of course they’d be far better off in Head Start than stuck at home.
I have no love for Haley Barbour. IMO, he represents many of the negative traits typical among hard core Republicans.
The initial reporting of his supposedly scandalous remark in the OP was scandalously misleading. The OP made is sound like it would be better for the kids to be in a whorehouse rather than in Headstart! That is not Barbour’s point. Barbour’s point is how important Head Start is because the home life of some of these kids is worse than growing up in a whorehouse.
Hi, Opal!
Barbour used rather rough language in a rhetorical device called ‘hyperbole’ (exaggeration to make a point). That’s all. That’s it. As much as I would love to roast Barbour’s ass for a worse offense, I don’t see it.
Therefore, the OP is just being as hysterical as a whore who didn’t get paid.