Anyone for Ann Coulter as #1 on the list?

Now available in paperback!

Unread postby steve1633 » Sat Aug 25, 2007 2:20 pm

3 great modern liberals (2 dead unfortunately): Hunter S. Thompson, William S. Burroughs and Douglas Rushkoff. Douglas Rushkoff is the most academic of them all the other two write with very very strong emotion and go often into hyperbole, exageration and fantasy but if you look at their core ideals and values that is what liberalism is about.
steve1633
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:05 pm

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Still Screwing Up America ...

Unread postby Inglewood Bob » Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:43 pm

Sorry for the time it’s taken to return to this discussion. Having to earn a living and provide for my family, I’ve done what all responsible liberals must do – you know, get on welfare and lie around, corrupt minors, and so forth.

Jm Thms clearly does not get, or chooses not to address, the point I’ve made. I’ve noted that Mr. Goldberg’s list of people who screw up America skews heavily toward the left, which suggests that his criterion for inclusion on this list is simply that someone disagree with his point of view. He has responded that admission to this pantheon doesn’t come down to “just” that reason; with that word he acknowledges that I am essentially correct.

But he goes on to say that the “destructiveness of the ideology” plays into it “as well.”

In this context, disagreeing with Bernard Goldberg would seem to have become synonymous with advocating a “destructive ideology.” Thus, since I disagree with Mr. Goldberg on more than a few issues, I must apparently be an advocate for destruction, in which case, as suggested in my previous post, the best thing I can apparently do in the climate of these times is to keep quiet and go away.

True, JmThms assures me that these presumptions of right and wrong would “stimulate” rather than “shut down debate,” though he gives no evidence as to why other than to offer that liberal posts might point him toward “inconsistencies” in his view. In other words, I might somehow help Jm Thms and his colleagues spot and seal elements of their ideology that don’t conform sufficiently to the conservative line; if that’s what it comes down to, then I’m inclined to invoice him for this service.

Beyond that, I’m trying to figure out what it is that Jm Thms believes I want to destroy. The priorities, perhaps, of this administration, in placing support for corporate profits above rational steps to providing health care, job security, and decent wages? How about incompetence and dishonesty as prime movers of foreign policy? Then there are abuses of liberty by an administration whose policies, if practiced during the Clinton years to this extent, would surely have triggered hysteria on the right.

If so, then yes, I plead guilty. Let me add, though, that there are aspects to my views that might surprise Jm Thms – my opposition, for example, to leaving our borders wide open to illegal immigration, a policy whose advocacy by an ostensibly conservative president is mystifying only to the point that the synchronicity of cheap labor and corporate profits becomes clear.

I came to this position, and others that don’t fit so snugly into the liberal agenda, not by assuming that conservatives are wrong because I am right. Rather, I actually listened to what they said – and, wonder of wonders, was in a number of cases persuaded that they had something to say. Maybe this makes my outlook “inconsistent,” but this doesn’t frighten me as much as it apparently does Jm Thms. I have no problem pointing to Barry Goldwater (as does Hillary Clinton), for example, as an honorable and elucidating figure of recent U.S. history. Through my college years I was an admirer of Bill Buckley and remain so today. I have come as well to respect Joe Scarborough and even G. Gordon Liddy as advocates for the right in our time.

I cannot imagine feeling compelled to put these fiyr, or many other conservatives, on any leftie list of people screwing up the America we love.

Rather, it is more illuminating, and a lot more emotionally liberating, to assume that you always can learn from those with whom you disagree. Unfortunately, this premise, which I would call a cornerstone of democracy, has become unfashionable. It is easier now to stigmatize rather than engage our opponents.

Meanwhile, Mr. Goldberg, you have my first nominees for conservatives who I appreciate and respect. When you produce your list of ten liberals, as I’ve asked, I’ll furnish six more names and congratulate you on proving my apprehensions of your close-mindedness to be ill-founded.
Inglewood Bob
Media observer
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Still Screwing Up America ...

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sat Aug 25, 2007 5:20 pm

I'll bite....

Inglewood Bob wrote:Sorry for the time it’s taken to return to this discussion. Having to earn a living and provide for my family, I’ve done what all responsible liberals must do – you know, get on welfare and lie around, corrupt minors, and so forth.


A tongue-in-cheek (one hopes) over-generalization.

But the negative habits you cite do tend to be far more common among liberals than among conservatives.

Jm Thms clearly does not get, or chooses not to address, the point I’ve made. I’ve noted that Mr. Goldberg’s list of people who screw up America skews heavily toward the left, which suggests that his criterion for inclusion on this list is simply that someone disagree with his point of view. He has responded that admission to this pantheon doesn’t come down to “just” that reason; with that word he acknowledges that I am essentially correct.


Why would one contend that people with which one is generally in agreement are screwing up the world?

But he goes on to say that the “destructiveness of the ideology” plays into it “as well.”


And he would be correct.

In this context, disagreeing with Bernard Goldberg would seem to have become synonymous with advocating a “destructive ideology.” Thus, since I disagree with Mr. Goldberg on more than a few issues, I must apparently be an advocate for destruction, in which case, as suggested in my previous post, the best thing I can apparently do in the climate of these times is to keep quiet and go away.


While I'm tempted to say "If the shoe fits....", I won't, not for the least reason of which it does nothing to advance the debate.

What I will say is that disagreement, in and of itself, is never sufficient grounds to make a plausible claim that one is or is not screwing up America. It's what you do or don't do based on your disagreement that rises to that level.

True, JmThms assures me that these presumptions of right and wrong would “stimulate” rather than “shut down debate,” though he gives no evidence as to why other than to offer that liberal posts might point him toward “inconsistencies” in his view. In other words, I might somehow help Jm Thms and his colleagues spot and seal elements of their ideology that don’t conform sufficiently to the conservative line; if that’s what it comes down to, then I’m inclined to invoice him for this service.


Moral relativism, no matter who practices it, is perhaps the single most destructive theory at work today. And it's adherents are far more numerous among the Left than Right.

Beyond that, I’m trying to figure out what it is that Jm Thms believes I want to destroy. The priorities, perhaps, of this administration, in placing support for corporate profits above rational steps to providing health care, job security, and decent wages? How about incompetence and dishonesty as prime movers of foreign policy? Then there are abuses of liberty by an administration whose policies, if practiced during the Clinton years to this extent, would surely have triggered hysteria on the right.


Do you really believe that it is the function of the government to 'provide health care, job security and decent wages'?

And could you please offer any provable examples of "abuses of liberty" against citizens of the United States by this Administration?

If so, then yes, I plead guilty. Let me add, though, that there are aspects to my views that might surprise Jm Thms – my opposition, for example, to leaving our borders wide open to illegal immigration, a policy whose advocacy by an ostensibly conservative president is mystifying only to the point that the synchronicity of cheap labor and corporate profits becomes clear.


Does anyone still believe that George W. Bush is a bona fide Conservative? I don't...and I'm probably the most die-hard Conservative here.

I came to this position, and others that don’t fit so snugly into the liberal agenda, not by assuming that conservatives are wrong because I am right. Rather, I actually listened to what they said – and, wonder of wonders, was in a number of cases persuaded that they had something to say. Maybe this makes my outlook “inconsistent,” but this doesn’t frighten me as much as it apparently does Jm Thms. I have no problem pointing to Barry Goldwater (as does Hillary Clinton), for example, as an honorable and elucidating figure of recent U.S. history. Through my college years I was an admirer of Bill Buckley and remain so today. I have come as well to respect Joe Scarborough and even G. Gordon Liddy as advocates for the right in our time.


And I have come to respect Joe Liebermann and Zell Miller as advocates for....well, I'd say the Left but they, while Democrats, have almost nothing in common with the modern-day Democrat Party. They are waht Democrats used to be and sadly, for them as well as for the country as a whole, aren't any longer.

I cannot imagine feeling compelled to put these fiyr, or many other conservatives, on any leftie list of people screwing up the America we love.


Could you point to someone among the leftists in Bernie's book of whom you feel the evidence is lacking? I'd need to know what your specific criteria is before I can comment upon it.

And I notice that, with the exception of Judge Roy Moore, vert few people on the Right have any issue with those on the Right Bernie calls out in his book. I think that yet another example of how, when someone on the Right 'goes off the deep end', fellow travellers on the Right are quick to condemn them and distance themselves from their statements, while those on the Left tend to embrace their radicals.

Rather, it is more illuminating, and a lot more emotionally liberating, to assume that you always can learn from those with whom you disagree. Unfortunately, this premise, which I would call a cornerstone of democracy, has become unfashionable. It is easier now to stigmatize rather than engage our opponents.


It's not the Right that wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Meanwhile, Mr. Goldberg, you have my first nominees for conservatives who I appreciate and respect. When you produce your list of ten liberals, as I’ve asked, I’ll furnish six more names and congratulate you on proving my apprehensions of your close-mindedness to be ill-founded.


I'd hope he'd take you up on your challenge, and I applaud your open-mindedness- that's something ideologs on both sides should embrace far more often than they do.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby Inglewood Bob » Sat Aug 25, 2007 6:36 pm

It seems that some of my colleagues on the right have as much time on their hands as I do during the weekend.

First, it was nice of WOMI to remind me that “the negative habits you cite do tend to be far more common among liberals than among conservatives.” Well, of course: Conservatives are too busy combing through the inner cities to find cheap illegal aliens to underpay for grunt work on behalf of Halliburton. You know I’m right …

He asks: “Why would one contend that people with which one is generally in agreement are screwing up the world?” I assume this is why some people on this board are mystified as to why Michael Savage was in Mr. Goldberg’s book or why anyone would object to Ann Colter disparaging the sexual inclinations of males with whom she disagrees.

This gets to my point, which is that I believe the tenor of dialog, more than the substance of differing points of view, is what is screwing up America. This makes it obvious why Savage is in the book – and mysterious as to why Colter isn’t.

It was nice of WOMI to concede that the absence of opposing points of view, even in a climate of Colter-ish epithets and character assassinations, “does nothing to advance the debate.” There is hope for illumination, even on the right, after all!

However, his comments about “moral relativism” and the Fairness Doctrine are mystifying, since neither is a subject I have yet to broach. Now, I happen to believe that talk radio during the Fairness Doctrine was a potential and sometimes actual force for bringing liberals and conservatives closer to finding areas of consensus based on respect for the value of civilized discussion – but of course that kind of civility directly threatens the livelihoods of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, which helps explain their faux hysteria over left-wing attempts to shut down “free speech.”

“Does anyone still believe that George W. Bush is a bona fide conservative?” His tax-and-spend sprint toward record national debt would seem to settle that – but then again, y’all should have taken a hint by reading the lips of his father’s infamous sound bite. Of course, even Ronald Reagan raised taxes four times between 1982 and ’84, with gasoline tax hikes in ‘83 and ’84 sucking $50 billion over three years into the federal budget. More on this is available here:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060804.shtml

“Could you please offer any provable examples of ‘abuses of liberty’ against citizens of the United States by this administration?” First, is WOMI saying that the Patriot Act was unnecessary in that there was already satisfactory opportunity to invade the privacy of suspected terrorists, liberals, and other evil-doers? Second, I would ask WOMI to tell me how many “National Security Letters” he received prior to passage of the Patriot Act – oh, wait, I forgot, he can’t disclose this information without inviting arrest and incarceration. Instead, I’ll ask WOMI to contact G. Gordon Liddy and ask why, during or shortly after debate over this legislation (I can’t remember which), he told his radio audience that he was actually standing alongside the ACLU in opposing it precisely because of his conservative conviction in rights to privacy.

I actually identify myself with Joe Liebermann – again, as noted in my previous post, my views on Iraq don’t necessarily conform to Democrat talking points – and would add that in domestic matters he seems to maintain a New Deal liberalism, as I do. But listing Zell Miller as an advocate for the left is like citing Lindsey Lohan as your ideal driving instructor.

Finally, going back to my first post here, my comments have been based on a cursory skim through Mr. Goldberg’s book while at a book rack in a store. I therefore don’t have a list to consult in honoring WOMI’s request that I name “leftists” who have been unfairly included in its pages. I will say, though, that Bill Moyers’ presence did surprise me, and I did observe that Mr. Goldberg chose to ignore Al Franken’s fact-based critique of “Bias” and instead fill a couple of pages with a sophomoric fake Q-and-A. Not that I’m a Franken booster, but neither am I happy with what seems to be the influence of an image consultant who has persuaded Mr. Goldberg that the future lies in the kind of bratty, “screw-up” humor that those of the right persuasion seem to associate exclusively with Franken, Moore, and other inconveniently entertaining opponents.
Inglewood Bob
Media observer
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:41 pm

Inglewood Bob wrote:It seems that some of my colleagues on the right have as much time on their hands as I do during the weekend.


Agreed.

First, it was nice of WOMI to remind me that “the negative habits you cite do tend to be far more common among liberals than among conservatives.” Well, of course: Conservatives are too busy combing through the inner cities to find cheap illegal aliens to underpay for grunt work on behalf of Halliburton. You know I’m right …


And Liberals are far too busy registering illegal aliens to vote Democrat. You know I'm right....

He asks: “Why would one contend that people with which one is generally in agreement are screwing up the world?” I assume this is why some people on this board are mystified as to why Michael Savage was in Mr. Goldberg’s book or why anyone would object to Ann Colter disparaging the sexual inclinations of males with whom she disagrees.


I've no problem with Savage's inclusion in the book, nor, really, do I quibble with any of the Conservatives Bernie included.

Savage deserves inclusion because, in additiona to being bombastic, he is a liar. Bombast, I can tolerate; lying I cannot. And I've yet to see any examples of Ann Coulter lying.

This gets to my point, which is that I believe the tenor of dialog, more than the substance of differing points of view, is what is screwing up America. This makes it obvious why Savage is in the book – and mysterious as to why Colter isn’t.


Please see above.

It was nice of WOMI to concede that the absence of opposing points of view, even in a climate of Colter-ish epithets and character assassinations, “does nothing to advance the debate.” There is hope for illumination, even on the right, after all!


And the ratio is about 150:1, liberal to conservative. It's a damn good thing that Coulter is up to the task, else the war of rhetoric would be totally lost.

However, his comments about “moral relativism” and the Fairness Doctrine are mystifying, since neither is a subject I have yet to broach. Now, I happen to believe that talk radio during the Fairness Doctrine was a potential and sometimes actual force for bringing liberals and conservatives closer to finding areas of consensus based on respect for the value of civilized discussion – but of course that kind of civility directly threatens the livelihoods of Limbaugh, Hannity, et al, which helps explain their faux hysteria over left-wing attempts to shut down “free speech.”


You already have approximately 90% of the nation's daily newspapers and about 95% of all broadcast news/commentary shows firmly entrenched on the Left to far-Left. Do you concede the need for any substantive debate at all or would you muzzle all dissent?

I'll quote your words here again for clarity:

Rather, it is more illuminating, and a lot more emotionally liberating, to assume that you always can learn from those with whom you disagree. Unfortunately, this premise, which I would call a cornerstone of democracy, has become unfashionable. It is easier now to stigmatize rather than engage our opponents.


Again, if the Left really believes in the free exchange and debate of ideas, why does it seek to muzzle the only outlets that dare present a dissenting view and to do so by legislative fiat?

Is it any coincidence that, not long after the demise of the Fairness Doctrine, Conservative voices became heard more often? Further, is it any coincidence that, once there were more Conservative voices heard, voters tossed 40 years of failed liberal policies out and gave Conservatives a chance (a chance which non-conservative Republicans eventually wasted)? Cause- effect. It's little wonder why the Left wants to use the force of government to shut down Fox News and Talk Radio- when the ideologies are presented side by side, they lose too often.

“Does anyone still believe that George W. Bush is a bona fide conservative?” His tax-and-spend sprint toward record national debt would seem to settle that – but then again, y’all should have taken a hint by reading the lips of his father’s infamous sound bite. Of course, even Ronald Reagan raised taxes four times between 1982 and ’84, with gasoline tax hikes in ‘83 and ’84 sucking $50 billion over three years into the federal budget. More on this is available here:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh060804.shtml


You mean 'TAX CUT and spend".

“Could you please offer any provable examples of ‘abuses of liberty’ against citizens of the United States by this administration?” First, is WOMI saying that the Patriot Act was unnecessary in that there was already satisfactory opportunity to invade the privacy of suspected terrorists, liberals, and other evil-doers? Second, I would ask WOMI to tell me how many “National Security Letters” he received prior to passage of the Patriot Act – oh, wait, I forgot, he can’t disclose this information without inviting arrest and incarceration. Instead, I’ll ask WOMI to contact G. Gordon Liddy and ask why, during or shortly after debate over this legislation (I can’t remember which), he told his radio audience that he was actually standing alongside the ACLU in opposing it precisely because of his conservative conviction in rights to privacy.


Nice duck of the issue.

As you chose to be non-reponsive, I have no reason to reply.

I actually identify myself with Joe Liebermann – again, as noted in my previous post, my views on Iraq don’t necessarily conform to Democrat talking points – and would add that in domestic matters he seems to maintain a New Deal liberalism, as I do. But listing Zell Miller as an advocate for the left is like citing Lindsey Lohan as your ideal driving instructor.


Agreed on Liebermann.

And Miller is what Democrats used to be: tough on foreign policy and supporters of the military. Those are the kinds of positions that get you tossed out of the Democrat Party these days.

Just ask Joe Liebermann.

Finally, going back to my first post here, my comments have been based on a cursory skim through Mr. Goldberg’s book while at a book rack in a store. I therefore don’t have a list to consult in honoring WOMI’s request that I name “leftists” who have been unfairly included in its pages. I will say, though, that Bill Moyers’ presence did surprise me, and I did observe that Mr. Goldberg chose to ignore Al Franken’s fact-based critique of “Bias” and instead fill a couple of pages with a sophomoric fake Q-and-A. Not that I’m a Franken booster, but neither am I happy with what seems to be the influence of an image consultant who has persuaded Mr. Goldberg that the future lies in the kind of bratty, “screw-up” humor that those of the right persuasion seem to associate exclusively with Franken, Moore, and other inconveniently entertaining opponents.


Moyers should make the list if for no other reason that spouting far-left lunacy on the taxpayer's dime. NPR should be ideologically neutral but, even if one removes the erstwile Mr. Moyers from the picture (please!), they'd still be only slightly to the right of Code Pink(o).

As for Franken, when he does something that makes him deserving of bil then, he is the Clown Prince Of Democrat Party Politics. Franken claims to be a big believer in "satire"...is he still a big fan of it when the satire is aimed towards him?
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Re: Still Screwing Up America ...

Unread postby JmThms » Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:58 am

Inglewood Bob wrote:Sorry for the time it’s taken to return to this discussion. Having to earn a living and provide for my family, I’ve done what all responsible liberals must do – you know, get on welfare and lie around, corrupt minors, and so forth.

Jm Thms clearly does not get, or chooses not to address, the point I’ve made. I’ve noted that Mr. Goldberg’s list of people who screw up America skews heavily toward the left, which suggests that his criterion for inclusion on this list is simply that someone disagree with his point of view. He has responded that admission to this pantheon doesn’t come down to “just” that reason; with that word he acknowledges that I am essentially correct.

But he goes on to say that the “destructiveness of the ideology” plays into it “as well.”

In this context, disagreeing with Bernard Goldberg would seem to have become synonymous with advocating a “destructive ideology.” Thus, since I disagree with Mr. Goldberg on more than a few issues, I must apparently be an advocate for destruction, in which case, as suggested in my previous post, the best thing I can apparently do in the climate of these times is to keep quiet and go away.

True, JmThms assures me that these presumptions of right and wrong would “stimulate” rather than “shut down debate,” though he gives no evidence as to why other than to offer that liberal posts might point him toward “inconsistencies” in his view. In other words, I might somehow help Jm Thms and his colleagues spot and seal elements of their ideology that don’t conform sufficiently to the conservative line; if that’s what it comes down to, then I’m inclined to invoice him for this service.

Beyond that, I’m trying to figure out what it is that Jm Thms believes I want to destroy. The priorities, perhaps, of this administration, in placing support for corporate profits above rational steps to providing health care, job security, and decent wages? How about incompetence and dishonesty as prime movers of foreign policy? Then there are abuses of liberty by an administration whose policies, if practiced during the Clinton years to this extent, would surely have triggered hysteria on the right.

If so, then yes, I plead guilty. Let me add, though, that there are aspects to my views that might surprise Jm Thms – my opposition, for example, to leaving our borders wide open to illegal immigration, a policy whose advocacy by an ostensibly conservative president is mystifying only to the point that the synchronicity of cheap labor and corporate profits becomes clear.

I came to this position, and others that don’t fit so snugly into the liberal agenda, not by assuming that conservatives are wrong because I am right. Rather, I actually listened to what they said – and, wonder of wonders, was in a number of cases persuaded that they had something to say. Maybe this makes my outlook “inconsistent,” but this doesn’t frighten me as much as it apparently does Jm Thms. I have no problem pointing to Barry Goldwater (as does Hillary Clinton), for example, as an honorable and elucidating figure of recent U.S. history. Through my college years I was an admirer of Bill Buckley and remain so today. I have come as well to respect Joe Scarborough and even G. Gordon Liddy as advocates for the right in our time.

I cannot imagine feeling compelled to put these fiyr, or many other conservatives, on any leftie list of people screwing up the America we love.

Rather, it is more illuminating, and a lot more emotionally liberating, to assume that you always can learn from those with whom you disagree. Unfortunately, this premise, which I would call a cornerstone of democracy, has become unfashionable. It is easier now to stigmatize rather than engage our opponents.

Meanwhile, Mr. Goldberg, you have my first nominees for conservatives who I appreciate and respect. When you produce your list of ten liberals, as I’ve asked, I’ll furnish six more names and congratulate you on proving my apprehensions of your close-mindedness to be ill-founded.


Inglewood Bob, I do 'get', and have addressed, the point you've made. You say "I’ve noted that Mr. Goldberg’s list of people who screw up America skews heavily toward the left, which suggests that his criterion for inclusion on this list is simply that someone disagree with his point of view." Your interpretation of Mr. Goldberg's criterion is fallacious. Do you really believe that Mr. Goldberg goes through a list of people and thinks "so and so simply does not agree with my point of view, so he is on the list"? That is what you are saying. It is true that most of the people on his list do not fundamentally agree with his viewpoint - but that is quite different than being the criterion for inclusion. This is actually a good test of critical thinking. To further illustrate, there are conservatives on the list who fundamentally do agree with Bernie yet are included on the list for uncivil behavior. There. That should do it.
"A liberal is someone who is so broadminded they can't even take their own side in a fight"
- unknown

"[to Liberals] Loving America is too simple an emotion. To be nuanced you have to hate it a little."
- Ann Coulter
JmThms
Media observer
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:55 am
Location: San Diego

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sun Aug 26, 2007 2:08 pm

One constant I've noted about Liberals is their consistent predilection to engage in what psychologists call "projection".

"Projection" is generally defined as a tendency to accuse others of engaging in the very behavior that you do while denying that you do so.

In this context, it's easy to explain why Liberals would say that mere disagreement warrants being put on a list of people who screw something up- it is because they absolutely would do so. Moreoever, to Liberals, mere disagreement is reason enough...they need not go further than that.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Ann Coulter

Unread postby Dubya is a dick » Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:48 am

What a miserable skank... I hope the next time someone hits her with a pie it is filled with a poison. He is however a tribute on what a good surgeon can do in sexual reassignment.
Dubya is a dick
New Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:42 am

Re: Ann Coulter

Unread postby Jeffreydan » Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:50 am

Dubya is a dick wrote:What a miserable skank... I hope the next time someone hits her with a pie it is filled with a poison. He is however a tribute on what a good surgeon can do in sexual reassignment.

Wow, aren't you original.

Taking a little vacation from Democratic Underbelly, are we?
"I hate it when my foot falls asleep during the day, because then it's going to be up all night."
Jeffreydan
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 3170
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA.

Unread postby Dubya is a dick » Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:13 pm

I guess Ann is the only one who can say stupid stuff, but you people make her a millionaire based on her hatred and her lack of ability to recognize truth from fiction. You sir have been duped.
Dubya is a dick
New Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:42 am

Unread postby Jeffreydan » Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:02 am

Dubya is a dick wrote:I guess Ann is the only one who can say stupid stuff, but you people make her a millionaire based on her hatred and her lack of ability to recognize truth from fiction. You sir have been duped.

Not to get too far off the subject, but may I ask your opinion of Michael Moore, DD?
"I hate it when my foot falls asleep during the day, because then it's going to be up all night."
Jeffreydan
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 3170
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA.

Unread postby Dubya is a dick » Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:37 pm

He is an excellent filmmaker, and his hatred for th bush Crime family is not violent like Mr Coulters' is. He does not have instant access to the media unlike Mr. Coulter does on Faux news. The world would be a much better place if Mr Coulter would be stricken with a major stroke.
Dubya is a dick
New Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 1:42 am

Unread postby Jeffreydan » Sun Sep 02, 2007 3:04 am

Dubya is a dick wrote:He is an excellent filmmaker, and his hatred for th bush Crime family is not violent like Mr Coulters' is. He does not have instant access to the media unlike Mr. Coulter does on Faux news. The world would be a much better place if Mr Coulter would be stricken with a major stroke.

Is it then fair to say, and I loosely quote: "you people make him a millionaire based on his hatred and his lack of ability to recognize truth from fiction; you sir have been duped"?
Unlike you, I don't justify a high-profile political figure's (filmmaker, pundit/author, politician, whichever) hate or dishonesty when said figure is on my side of the aisle. I do generally like Ann Coulter, but she gets an unqualified "SHUT THE **** UP!" from me when she gets out of line. When a guy like Moore responds to the 9/11 attacks by saying that the USA is responsible for spreading misery around the world (paraphrased), is your reaction one of disgust, indifference, or agreement?
Unlike you, I don't disdain someone for "violent hatred" and then wish violence, pain and/or death to happen to them.

Face it, DD: you're partisan. You don't represent any credible or mainstream viewpoint. If you think there is any value in being believable or intellectually honest, then you'll A) assign a similar standard to your side as you do the other, and B) tone down the vitriol.
If those values don't mean squat to you, then by all means change nothing. Although if that's how you prefer it, you'll be doing your posting elsewhere. MODs here expect civility, from ALL contributors, and they're absolutely justified in that regard.
"I hate it when my foot falls asleep during the day, because then it's going to be up all night."
Jeffreydan
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 3170
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA.

Unread postby WeaponOfMassInstruction » Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:53 pm

File this one under the heading "Liberals can dish it out but can't take it."

Could you post an example- with context- of Coulter advocating violence towards anyone (save possibly Islamofascists)?
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
User avatar
WeaponOfMassInstruction
Mod Team
 
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Alabama

Unread postby Jeffreydan » Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:49 pm

WeaponOfMassInstruction wrote:File this one under the heading "Liberals can dish it out but can't take it."

Could you post an example- with context- of Coulter advocating violence towards anyone (save possibly Islamofascists)?

Wepp, I'm sure you were asking DD, but I can recall a couple of instances where Ann was quite indirectly (and obviously facetiously) doing so: A) after the Edwards gay slur reactions, she said next time she'd just wish for him to get killed (citing Maher and the libs' silence on his words) and B) referring to Murtha as the poster boy for fragging in a column.
I personally don't have a problem with these two examples; in context they're mild, sarcastic jabs. The gay slur itself, as well as her choice of words on the Jersey widows, got my dander up.
"I hate it when my foot falls asleep during the day, because then it's going to be up all night."
Jeffreydan
Media GOD!
 
Posts: 3170
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA.

PreviousNext

Return to 110 People who are Screwing up America... and Al Franken is number 37!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron