What PC Correctness Answer Irks You?

[rcfieldz]

What PC Correctness Answer Irks You?
I can't believe how on OTA (DTV) broadcasts no one is saying anything disparaging about homosexuality or transexuals. Seems that the networks have these people by the monetary balls. I suppose they would loose their job in a second if they didn't say Bruce Jenner is a beautiful woman. My GOD! Caitlyn Jenner is a freak. Yeah yeah I know. It's love love love thy neighbor. That's how they want you to think. Hey they aren't hurting anybody by getting married, that's what they say. There is something very wrong with society. I am a sinner. I beg repentance for my sinful actions. But I will not condone the teachings that have been with humanity for thousands of years. This is still the planet Earth. The government has gone haywire and it's time for the majority to kick the ass of these moral slackers to the curb and bring this counties next generation into a world that has it's head on straight and show what's the truth and what are lies! If you are a true believer than I hope you're ready for a large extinction because mankind is continuing to drive humanity into the ditch.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I have noticed that liberals themselves are often the victim of political correctness. I think deep down they are just afraid to not comply with political correctness and give in just like everyone else. It is just natural to want to be seen As a moral being and PC seems to take a very judgemental tone against people. I've experienced what it is like to be ostracized from them because I didn't agree fully with what they said.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“I can't believe how on OTA (DTV) broadcasts no one is saying anything disparaging about homosexuality or transexuals.”

Why would they, or anyone else, for that matter – what exactly have gay or transgender persons done to warrant being 'disparaged.'

No one is saying anything disparaging about gay or transgender persons because it indeed isn't warranted, having nothing to do with the myth of 'political correctness.'

 

[LoneLaugher]

Dude wants to say disparaging things about groups of Americans and he wants to be rewarded for it.

Poor guy.

 

[Freewill]

What irks me is how the narrative is defined by one faction or the other and that becomes the truth.

Take the ACA ruling for example. The wording is plain as day, the intent was stated before passage. Yet the narrative that is written is that it was a technical error which there is absolutely no evidence of that being the case but that is repeated over and over again.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What irks me is how the narrative is defined by one faction or the other and that becomes the truth.

Take the ACA ruling for example. The wording is plain as day, the intent was stated before passage. Yet the narrative that is written is that it was a technical error which there is absolutely no evidence of that being the case but that is repeated over and over again.

You think the intent was to deny subsidies for those on the federal exchange?

 

[Freewill]

What irks me is how the narrative is defined by one faction or the other and that becomes the truth.

Take the ACA ruling for example. The wording is plain as day, the intent was stated before passage. Yet the narrative that is written is that it was a technical error which there is absolutely no evidence of that being the case but that is repeated over and over again.

You think the intent was to deny subsidies for those on the federal exchange?

the intent was to force states to create exchanges it backfired. But it should not matter the intent it is the letter that should matter. And if the letter of the law isn't correct then Congress should fix it. If the democrats were too stupid to get this one fundamental thing right then what else did they screw up?

 

[LoneLaugher]

What irks me is how the narrative is defined by one faction or the other and that becomes the truth.

Take the ACA ruling for example. The wording is plain as day, the intent was stated before passage. Yet the narrative that is written is that it was a technical error which there is absolutely no evidence of that being the case but that is repeated over and over again.

You think the intent was to deny subsidies for those on the federal exchange?

the intent was to force states to create exchanges it backfired. But it should not matter the intent it is the letter that should matter. And if the letter of the law isn't correct then Congress should fix it. If the democrats were too stupid to get this one fundamental thing right then what else did they screw up?

So now the intent doesn't matter? You just said the intent mattered. Weird.

Force states to create exchanges? That sounds like bullshit.

Fix? As if.