Ok, fair enough. I really don't care if she was black or a woman, my argument is she showed no class.

Do you think my argument would have been any different if it has been a man, or a white man? Or a Hispanic man? Or someone from Italy? Cause if you think that would have made a difference in my objection, you may have something there.

When you see bigotry under every upturned stone, pretty soon everyone is a bigot.

That was rather unprofessional and unethical.

The king forbids it?
 

Hmm:hmmm: Who'd of thunk an Alaskan F-bomb would cause collateral damage way down here?
The fight for free will and free speech continues against the corruption in our governments and their propaganda outlets. :shucks:

After all, it was a king of England who created the word in question that so many take offense with. Considering the heinous act it was used to describe, there's no wonder that it's verboten in polite conversation. But, still, it's just a word that can only be judged dirty by examining the context in which it's used. In this case, apparent disillusioned exasperation in realizing that she had become another cog in the oppression machinery that she no longer wanted to be a part of.

No, it wasn't. Even a cursory glance at the etymology of the word will reveal that the legend of the acronym you refer to is completely false. The word is much older than that, and derives from one of the Germanic languages. :down:

More likely she'll get hired by that paragon of news reporting, Fox News...


<O>

Isn't that the American dream? :hmmm:

Keeping you on your toes, Steve...
 

Fleas, flies and friars.:03:
The acronym may not have been the origin for the word but, the acronym was used at one time.

Nice catch by the way.:up:

Nothing like getting screwed by the nobility.:arrgh!:

Sure, in the 1960s, when it started to be claimed that the acronym was used in olden times. There is no traceable dating earlier than that.

Chances are quite high (no pun intended, but if it raises a giggle I'm happy) that 'The actual owner of the Alaska Cannabis Club' partakes in a spliff or two and therefore either grows her own or has a dealer.

If she does have a dealer then there is a fair assumption that he may (have) be(en) jailed at some point, what with it being illegal (in some situations) in that state.

If that happened she'd be pretty pissed off.

Ergo Neal's comment was entirely fair. Many TV presenters have to do things they don't like - interview a much-hated politician, interview an author whose books bore them, praise military action that leads to the death or injury of a brave young man or woman, report on their sports team losing, or just plain old present a story to which their thoughts are the polar opposite.

I think the term here is 'suck it up', and just get on with your job the way (roughly) that it is expected from you.

Obviously if you're going to be so offended then quit before, or quit and explain yourself afterwards. But to do so on air like that is wholly unprofessional. Just like somebody said. :03:

Come on! Who would be dumb enough to take a nobody from Alaska and put them on a VP ticket just because they are female?

No political party would be that dumb or desperate.

Yep, move on and get on with it.

Good point ETR3. This is a modern independent woman she doesn't need a drug dealer most likely she grows her own weed.

In Alaska? Doubtful.:D The only thing that grows there is mostly tundra moss. Unless she has a green house or a hydroponic setup in her basement.:yeah:

Calling a plant a drug is just so off the mark. :roll: