TexasCHLforum.com

SewTexas wrote:he simply responded in the same tone as the father of the young man.

The father of the DEAD young man. I'll cut that guy some slack.

Again this dude needs to stick to plumbing. His help I don't need.

MeMelYup wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I read the whole letter, and it didn't bother me at all. Given the uproar over that one sentence, and given 20/20 hindsight, I might rephrase that one sentence thusly:

As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.

becomes.....

In the midst of your pain - I ask you to remember that taking away my Constitutional rights will not bring your son back to life.

Says the same thing and is not as harsh and less in your face.

Joe the Plummer May not be as articulate and versed in linguistic skills as you are.

Regardless, his comment was crass and harsh.

MeMelYup wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I read the whole letter, and it didn't bother me at all. Given the uproar over that one sentence, and given 20/20 hindsight, I might rephrase that one sentence thusly:

As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.

becomes.....

In the midst of your pain - I ask you to remember that taking away my Constitutional rights will not bring your son back to life.

Says the same thing and is not as harsh and less in your face.

Joe the Plummer May not be as articulate and versed in linguistic skills as you are.

And I want to reiterate that I don't think he did anything wrong. My suggestion is predicated on hindsight being 20/20.

We can almost always do better if we reread and reconsider, and then rewrite. I do it all the time.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

SewTexas wrote:he simply responded in the same tone as the father of the young man.

The father of the DEAD young man. I'll cut that guy some slack.

Again this dude needs to stick to plumbing. His help I don't need.

he has the right to free speech, same as you, I believe, yes?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I read the whole letter, and it didn't bother me at all. Given the uproar over that one sentence, and given 20/20 hindsight, I might rephrase that one sentence thusly:

As harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don’t trump my Constitutional rights.

becomes.....

In the midst of your pain - I ask you to remember that taking away my Constitutional rights will not bring your son back to life.

Says the same thing and is not as harsh and less in your face.

Joe the Plummer May not be as articulate and versed in linguistic skills as you are.

And I want to reiterate that I don't think he did anything wrong. My suggestion is predicated on hindsight being 20/20.

We can almost always do better if we reread and reconsider, and then rewrite. I do it all the time.

true,

however, if you've never read any of his stuff he actually does have an 'in your face' type of style. it may be a regional thing or just a style, but it's him. and, before you say anything, no I don't make a habit of reading him, I have read a few of his posts.

I can tolerate 1,000 Joe the Plumbers easier than 1 piers morgan.

Undeniably, I approach public statements with the background of having been involved and 2nd Amendment advocacy for over thirty four years. I presume that anything and everything I say will be evaluated by anti-gun people and organizations and that they will mine my statements for sound bites they can take out of context. Although Joe has become a recent public figure because of his accurate condemnation of President Obama, he is not experienced in advocating or opposing any political issue. Therefore, I cannot expect him to be as cognizant of treachery by the media.

His statement was a gold mine for anti-gun media to use as an inflammatory sound-bite. Until I saw this thread, I did not know that it was one sentence in a letter, I thought it was a public statement. His message was accurate but the method of delivery was ill-advised.


Chas.

SewTexas wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

SewTexas wrote:he simply responded in the same tone as the father of the young man.

The father of the DEAD young man. I'll cut that guy some slack.

Again this dude needs to stick to plumbing. His help I don't need.

he has the right to free speech, same as you, I believe, yes?

All burger eaten Americans have the right to free speech (ok maybe not in California). But sometimes the best use of that right is NOT using it.

As stated by others, it would be amazingly easy to have said that better. If you're not lucid enough to do so, as Grandma would say "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."

Jim Beaux wrote:I can tolerate 1,000 Joe the Plumbers easier than 1 piers morgan.

Just because one side has a crass speaker, doesn't mean both sides have to.

SewTexas wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

SewTexas wrote:he simply responded in the same tone as the father of the young man.

The father of the DEAD young man. I'll cut that guy some slack.

Again this dude needs to stick to plumbing. His help I don't need.

he has the right to free speech, same as you, I believe, yes?

Someone having an opinion about how someone says something does not infringe upon that person's right to free speech.

The anti gun crowd can manufacture plenty ammunition without us serving some up to them.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:I can tolerate 1,000 Joe the Plumbers easier than 1 piers morgan.

Just because one side has a crass speaker, doesn't mean both sides have to.

That was never inferred.

Jim Beaux wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:I can tolerate 1,000 Joe the Plumbers easier than 1 piers morgan.

Just because one side has a crass speaker, doesn't mean both sides have to.

That was never inferred.

it most definitely was.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:I can tolerate 1,000 Joe the Plumbers easier than 1 piers morgan.

Just because one side has a crass speaker, doesn't mean both sides have to.

That was never inferred.

it most definitely was.

Stop.

Joe's wording is indeed unfortunate; especially when quoted out of context, but he would have been vilified no matter how he stated it. IMHO

SewTexas wrote:...however, if you've never read any of his stuff he actually does have an 'in your face' type of style. it may be a regional thing or just a style, but it's him. and, before you say anything, no I don't make a habit of reading him, I have read a few of his posts.

Heh heh...no, I won't tease you about reading him. LOL.

You actually probably know more about him than I do. I remember the kerfuffle he started when he confronted Obama about income redistribution during the campaign, but beyond that, I really haven't paid attention to him at all. So I'm not familiar with his style.