McCain offends Paris Hilton's mom

Monday 04th August, 05:57 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 133 Total Comments Show All

sensei258 at 08:28 PM JST - 7th August

I agree with Blue Tiger when he said "Much ado about nothing". Somebody explain to me why we care if Paris Hilton's mom was offended.
Kijimuna at 05:56 AM JST - 8th August

Paris' response is the best TV to come out of this election so far. Stars to her PR person. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir was a master stroke.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1381403370129123365&hl=en
SezWho2 at 08:46 AM JST - 8th August

sensei258,

No one can explain to you why "we" care. You can explain to us why "you" don't care or others can explain to you why "they" do. And you'll have to make some allowance for possibly having selected the wrong verb.

In my case, I don't care so much as I am interested. I am interested because I have felt that McCain's campaign was distractingly negative and that McCain's major issue is with Obama and not with the problems that America needs to solve. When a McCain supporter who gave the maximum actually says that "it's a waste of the country's time and attention", that tends to support my opinion and I am interested.

Sure, it doesn't prove anything. That is, it doesn't prove anything other than that McCain supporters can also take offense at what I take offense at. If you haven't guessed so yet, I'm on the other side of the fence, the side that asks whether McCain is ready to lead.
Zolt at 01:18 PM JST - 8th August

I wouldn't have believed it, but Paris' response was worth watching and not only for the hotness.

Paris for president! It would still be a net IQ increase at the white house...
sensei258 at 05:11 PM JST - 8th August

SezWho2...thanks for the elementary school grammar lesson. Let me explain in in simpler terms. Obviously the press thinks "we the public" care, or they would not have made it a news story.
sensei258 at 05:14 PM JST - 8th August

cont'd (that means continued)...I never said I didn't care. The verb do is implied as in explain why we "do" care.
sensei258 at 05:17 PM JST - 8th August

cont'd (now you know what that means). Did you catch my double "in" in my 1st response. I will expect my report card in the mail. Just don't send a letter to my parents pleeeeeez.
SezWho2 at 06:31 PM JST - 8th August

sensei258,

That was not a grammar lesson. It was a reminder to speak for yourself.

The press obviously thinks that some people will find this story to be of interest. And the press was obviously right.
sensei258 at 08:22 PM JST - 8th August

SezWho2...You tell me to speak for myself, but look at your own last reply. You are speaking for "some people". Practice what you preach.
knucklerap at 08:31 PM JST - 8th August

McCain should have used the sweet Swedish tail, Scarlett Johansson, for the ad. Now, she and Obama are exchanging e-mails. McCain has expertly played on white man's fear of black man/white woman hanky panky.
SezWho2 at 09:38 AM JST - 9th August

sensei258,

No, I am speaking for myself. I am a part of the "some people" that the astonishingly high number of 128 or 129 posts to this board have shown to have an interest in this topic. Or did you think I was the only one?
sensei258 at 04:48 PM JST - 9th August

So you can be part of "some people" while speaking for them, but I can't be part of "we" doing the same?
SezWho2 at 08:50 PM JST - 10th August

That's partially right.

"We" is all-inclusive. Unless we all have the same feelings and point of view no one tell us why we should care, why we should be interested or anything else. You are a part of "we", but no one has nominated you to speak for us.

Furthermore, you have not spoken for yourself. Your comment might be taken to imply that you do not care whether Hilton's mom is offended. It might also be taken to mean that nobody should care. You can't speak for us because you have not even spoken for yourself.

I have spoken for myself. And speaking only as myself, I am "some" people. But in addition to me, there are others. The number of posts here shows that. I am not speaking for them when I call attention to that fact.

Instead of getting so huffy about this, why don't you tell us why the press is making a mistake in thinking that people will be (or as is the case now, were) interested in this story. That is, if that's your opinion.
sensei258 at 09:28 PM JST - 10th August

We is obviously NOT all-inclusive, that would mean that everyone cares whether she was offended. Common sense would dictate that is not the case. Do yourself a favor and look at my first post on this topic. It was only a request for somebody to explain why it should be newsworthy that Paris Hilton's mom was offended. You are the one standing on a soapbox preaching how people should think about this, and the campaign. Your 21 posts illustrate that.
SezWho2 at 12:03 PM JST - 11th August

sensei258,

Au contraire, your counting my posts illustrates the extent of your chagrin.

Without an antecedent, "we" is all-inclusive. And it was part of my point that its use means that everyone does or everyone does not care. Common sense does dictate that this is not the case. Perhaps the question phrased with "...why anyone should care" would have been more objective?

I'm well aware of your first point on this topic. If it was only a request that somebody explain why it should be newsworthy that Paris Hilton's mom was offended, I did that and you have not yet commented upon the explanation. If you would like to do yourself a favor, you might go back and read all the other posts to see why others think this is newsworthy for there is no shortage of explanation even prior to your post.

You have not yet weighed in with any direct opinion one way or another although that same first post that you mention could easily be read as a snarky way of commenting that this is not newsworthy. If your first post was an innocent question, you have not expressed any opinion at all and have not spoken for yourself. If it was other than innocent, you seem to me to derisively suggest that this is not newsworthy for "us".

Why is it that you would rather discuss the meaning of "we" than state your own opinion?