07-12-2012, 05:03 AM
Monk,
The very term "short bus" was unknown until recent years, just as it used to be considered way out of line for ANY adult to use the word "retard." The bar has been lowered considerably however, to accommodate the needs of the idiocracy. "Short bus" can only be used in a disparaging way; there is no "context" in which it doesn't refer to the sad fact that some children are forced to ride in buses which literally identify them as being less than "normal." If you aren't offended by it, I assure you that most of us with loved ones who rode such buses are.
Charles continues to prove just how devoid he is of decency and empathy, as his response to my post was yet another mean-spirited reference to mental retardation, "drool." In what intellectual "context" are you using "short bus," "Special Olympics" and "drool," Charles? I guess it was better than his typical childish response of "yawn." And I haven't been given an elitist lecture in a foreign language yet.
Try joking about the "short bus" or "Special Olympics" in front of any member of the Kennedy family. I believe their reaction would be much closer to mine than yours. Charles again refers to this war we're in, and intimates that being able to joke about the buses mentally challenged people ride to school in is an essential part of his arsenal in that war. So the "enemy" you refer to would be above using such offensive terms? How does this "humor" fit into the battle?
And you are worried that the likes of Jim Fetzer are embarrassing the research community. Charles has publicly come out in support of ad hom attacks, and now insists on ridiculing those who are offended by terms like "short bus." He should be embarrassed. I'm glad to see that Jim Fetzer understands this. Doesn't anyone else?
The very term "short bus" was unknown until recent years, just as it used to be considered way out of line for ANY adult to use the word "retard." The bar has been lowered considerably however, to accommodate the needs of the idiocracy. "Short bus" can only be used in a disparaging way; there is no "context" in which it doesn't refer to the sad fact that some children are forced to ride in buses which literally identify them as being less than "normal." If you aren't offended by it, I assure you that most of us with loved ones who rode such buses are.
Charles continues to prove just how devoid he is of decency and empathy, as his response to my post was yet another mean-spirited reference to mental retardation, "drool." In what intellectual "context" are you using "short bus," "Special Olympics" and "drool," Charles? I guess it was better than his typical childish response of "yawn." And I haven't been given an elitist lecture in a foreign language yet.
Try joking about the "short bus" or "Special Olympics" in front of any member of the Kennedy family. I believe their reaction would be much closer to mine than yours. Charles again refers to this war we're in, and intimates that being able to joke about the buses mentally challenged people ride to school in is an essential part of his arsenal in that war. So the "enemy" you refer to would be above using such offensive terms? How does this "humor" fit into the battle?
And you are worried that the likes of Jim Fetzer are embarrassing the research community. Charles has publicly come out in support of ad hom attacks, and now insists on ridiculing those who are offended by terms like "short bus." He should be embarrassed. I'm glad to see that Jim Fetzer understands this. Doesn't anyone else?