Quote:
Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
So it's not okay to show the graves of Civil War soldiers to (for example) make the point that some people died in the defense of the unjust cause of slavery? By your definition above, it would similarly be wrong for an editorial to show the coffin of a gang leader to make a commentary about the dead-end perils of gang life, right?
The alternative here is to bury the truth and engage in revisionist history. . . Is this REALLY what you'd prefer?
Get a clue. Nobody gives a rats arse about your hatred for your fellow Americans that happen to disagree with your political viewpoint - not even the Republicans.
|
Revisionist history?
Buddy, if you think the civil war was all about slavery you need to read up a bit. Maybe at the end, when Lincoln was trying to rally people behind the war, but if you think it was the primary motivator, well...
Which is worse, the hatred you
feel like he is expressing, or the utter lack of respect these ads show. This is sort of like the Cindy Sheehan bunch that was putting the names of fallen soldiers on crosses in a ditch, without approval from the surviving families, then got sh
itty with them when they wanted to take down the cross with their son's/daughter's name.
The Democratic Party will use the images described, as if they gave a "rat's a
ss" about the sacrifice represented, at the
same time they are talking about our soldiers being criminals, nice.
How exactly is it that that is not exploitive and offensive? I am certain you can explain it, or at the very least, give a nice rationalization.