Ann Coulter and the Retarded Right

[Zero]

See, this is the part I don't get: the woman is obviously either demented or phoney or both, and yet she is allowed to represent the 'conservative' side on TV and radio. She makes Rush Limbaugh look rational, and George Will look liberal. She lies with more frequency and consistancy than I thought was humanly possible. Even other conservatives in the know secretly(or not so secretly) think she is a lunatic. What does that say about her audience?


If you've read anything Ann Coulter has ever written, and agreed with it wholeheatedly...



:crazy:


[/rant]

[peptoabysmal]

LOL

Any worse than Al Franken? I put them in the same category: political satire. Good for a laugh now and then...

[Ed]

The moment she ceases to garner audience is the moment she vanishes.

[Zero]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
LOL

Any worse than Al Franken? I put them in the same category: political satire. Good for a laugh now and then... There is a solid difference...Al Franken has never claimed to be anything else but a comedian. In his writings, he generally identifies the bogus parts. Ann Coulter, to my knowledge, has never admitted to being anything except the overbearing ranting lunatic that she appears to be.

[crackmonkey]

What has Ann Coulter claimed to be? I don;t know that she's ever claimed any mantle at all. In the same vein, I don't recall Franken ever claiming NOT to be a journalist or political commentator. The 'I'm only a comedian' label doesn't exempt you from critique of your ideas or pronouncements.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ed
The moment she ceases to garner audience is the moment she vanishes. The problem is that, because she has no standards or ethics, she's always willing to take her nonsense up another notch to draw people in...sort of like MTV.

[Zero]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
What has Ann Coulter claimed to be? I don;t know that she's ever claimed any mantle at all. In the same vein, I don't recall Franken ever claiming NOT to be a journalist or political commentator. The 'I'm only a comedian' label doesn't exempt you from critique of your ideas or pronouncements. Don't get sidetracked by Al Franken...and don't tell me you are actually defending that lying psychotic whore, are you?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zero
...and don't tell me you are actually defending that lying psychotic whore, are you?
Strong assertions, no facts, next case. Has she lost any lawsuits for libel or slander?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
See, this is the part I don't get: the woman is obviously either demented or phoney or both, and yet she is allowed to represent the 'conservative' side on TV and radio. She makes Rush Limbaugh look rational, and George Will look liberal. She lies with more frequency and consistancy than I thought was humanly possible. Even other conservatives in the know secretly(or not so secretly) think she is a lunatic. What does that say about her audience?


If you've read anything Ann Coulter has ever written, and agreed with it wholeheatedly...



:crazy:


[/rant]

Yeah, she's pretty insane. However on the opposite side of the political loony spectrum is Michael Moore who for some bizarre reason claims to speak for liberal left and the workers of this country. What does it say about his audience?

As a side note, a lot more people on this forum defended Moore than Coulter.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by hammegk

Strong assertions, no facts, next case. Has she lost any lawsuits for libel or slander?

Oh that's only because of clever footnotes that most people do not read or outright ignore.

You can say, "Democrats want to eat babies"*


*Only two people Bob Thomas and Tom Roberts who claimed to be Democrats said they want to eat babies.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero
Don't get sidetracked by Al Franken...and don't tell me you are actually defending that lying psychotic whore, are you?

Hmm... and what does this post make you?

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


Hmm... and what does this post make you? It makes me a ranting poster on the Internet...I'm sure you noticed? Did you miss the "[/rant]" thing on my first post? Consider it in play for the whole thread. Now, if I wind up on a panel discussing politics on CNN, based on my rantings, it becomes a whole other game.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Yeah, she's pretty insane. However on the opposite side of the political loony spectrum is Michael Moore who for some bizarre reason claims to speak for liberal left and the workers of this country. What does it say about his audience?

As a side note, a lot more people on this forum defended Moore than Coulter. If you want to start am anti- Michael Moore thread, feel free. I'll be right there with you. I don't have the same sort of distaste for him as I do Coulter...just as much distaste, but a different flavor.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem is that, because she has no standards or ethics, she's always willing to take her nonsense up another notch to draw people in...sort of like MTV.

Yep,...MTV...and Michael Moore. :big:


Edited to add: "Damn, Grammatron beat me to it!"

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero
It makes me a ranting poster on the Internet...I'm sure you noticed? Did you miss the "[/rant]" thing on my first post? Consider it in play for the whole thread. Now, if I wind up on a panel discussing politics on CNN, based on my rantings, it becomes a whole other game.

Just pointing out the fact that she appears no different from you, other than political philosophy. If that's your point, I agree wholeheartedly!

[jj]

Originally posted by hammegk

Strong assertions, no facts, next case. Has she lost any lawsuits for libel or slander?

Has anyone in the last few years lost a lawsuit in a political setting, Hammegk?

You KNOW your question is illicit.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem is that, because she has no standards or ethics, she's always willing to take her nonsense up another notch to draw people in...sort of like MTV.

Sorta like "entertainment" generally. It isn't very acceptable to define any sort of behavior as out of line so pretty much anything goes. In years past we might have described Coulter as "Vulgar", now that term seems quaint.

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


Just pointing out the fact that she appears no different from you, other than political philosophy. If that's your point, I agree wholeheartedly! See, I don't have a serious problem with ranting, if it is labled as such, and political satire doesn't bother me either. If someone could show me a place where Coulter has admitted to a tendency to hyperbole and a less-than-strict adherance to the truth for the sake of humor, I'll take it back. I know Al Franken has something to that effect in his last book, along the lines of "if it sounds like I made something up, it is probably because I did to make the joke funnier", and constant footnotes containing disclaimers. If Coulter did anything like that, I wouldn't have felt the need to rant about her.

[Lurker]

Let's see. In her latest column she made slight of Max Cleeland's service record in Vietnam. She then lied about him dropping a grenade on himself.

Yeah, wonderful lady that Coulter gal. I wonder how conservatives can stomach that latest column. It went above and beyond her usual.

Lurker

[BTox]

Originally posted by Zero
If Coulter did anything like that, I wouldn't have felt the need to rant about her.

If I may ask, if she annoys you so, why do you read her? I can honestly say I've never read a word she has written - I've only seen her on a handful of TV appearances.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Grammatron



You can say, "Democrats want to eat babies"*


*Only two people Bob Thomas and Tom Roberts who claimed to be Democrats said they want to eat babies.
I wasn't aware of the new plank. I realized they don't mind to killing them before they are born.


Originally posted by jj

Has anyone in the last few years lost a lawsuit in a political setting, Hammegk?

You KNOW your question is illicit.
Yeah, trial lawyers = politicians =liars so there's not much action on the lawsuit front in this regard.


I know we disagree that my question is illicit. What else is new?

[Zero]

See, this is another thing...some people take Ann Coulter seriously. Most of you here seem to think she is a bit of a joke. The comparison to Moore is pretty apt, in its way, in that even though their styles are different, they are both pretty cavalier about little things like reality.

Tell you guys what; if you guys on the right-wing can get Coulter to shut up, I'll do what I can about Moore...deal?:p

[Zero]

Originally posted by BTox


If I may ask, if she annoys you so, why do you read her? I can honestly say I've never read a word she has written - I've only seen her on a handful of TV appearances. Every now and again someone quotes her or links to her site...and then I remember why I hate her all over again!!

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Lurker
Let's see. In her latest column she made slight of Max Cleeland's service record in Vietnam. She then lied about him dropping a grenade on himself.

Yeah, wonderful lady that Coulter gal. I wonder how conservatives can stomach that latest column. It went above and beyond her usual.

Lurker

A month before his Vietnam tour was up in 1968, Cleland stooped to pick up a grenade he thought had fallen off his belt as he jumped from a helicopter. It detonated, and he was left with one arm and no legs. Cleland spent a year in hospitals recovering, at times finding solace in alcohol. He was honored with the Bronze and Silver Stars.

LINK (http://www.macon.com/mld/telegraph/4417101.htm)

Sounds like she got it right Lurker. The guy mishandled dangerous ordinance, then got honored for it. Amazing!

One of my DI's at Ft. Gordon (who taught on the grenade range) told lots of stories of dumb grunts dropping live grenades. He never said anything about them being decorated for it though. I guess when you do something tragically dumb in a war zone you get to be a hero instead of a dumb-a$$.

-z

[DaChew]

Both sides have clowns that will say ANYTHING to cause the other side grief. Used to be James Carville on the left. Anyone remember Morton Downy Jr.? Now we have Coulter and Franken and Moore. The DNC chairman Terry McCauliff does the same sort of thing from time to time. The reason they're out there is because that sort of aggressive political body checking resonates with some people. I read Coulter for the same reason that someone on the left reads Franken: they're funny.

I'll start worrying about it when one of them is asked to help with policy decisions.

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't know what else Anne Coulter may or may not have said but anyone who proposes that we forcibly convert people in another country to Christianity (or any religion for that matter) and who proposes that liberals (i.e.people whose political views are different than hers) ought to be executed has lost all credibility in my book.

I am no fan of Micheal Moore or Al Franken either but I have never heard of anything remotely as bad as those two things from either of those two.

[jj]

well, I hadn't read her spew, or heard it, until some sunday morning when I turned on the TV and saw this smiling blond face saying things like "John Kerry? You mean that gigilo? Ha ha ha ha hahahahaha! You know he just lives off his women, don't you?" when the name came up.

At that point, it was clear that the person is a psychopathic liar of the worst sort.

She calls Kerry a gigilo, while she uses her feminity and looks to try to sway peoples' political opinions to the totalitarian right, and take away the rights of those who reject her fascist opinions. Um, what does that make her?

Never mind, we already know, except that term is usually used for, oh, never mind, no need to bring up abductors muscles.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
See, this is another thing...some people take Ann Coulter seriously. Most of you here seem to think she is a bit of a joke. The comparison to Moore is pretty apt, in its way, in that even though their styles are different, they are both pretty cavalier about little things like reality.

Tell you guys what; if you guys on the right-wing can get Coulter to shut up, I'll do what I can about Moore...deal?:p

The best way to deal with them, IMO is to ignore them. They seem to feed on attention they get when they spew some crap out; if you ignore them they will just fade away into obscurity.

[ktesibios]

Originally posted by rikzilla




LINK (http://www.macon.com/mld/telegraph/4417101.htm)

Sounds like she got it right Lurker. The guy mishandled dangerous ordinance, then got honored for it. Amazing!

One of my DI's at Ft. Gordon (who taught on the grenade range) told lots of stories of dumb grunts dropping live grenades. He never said anything about them being decorated for it though. I guess when you do something tragically dumb in a war zone you get to be a hero instead of a dumb-a$$.

-z

Wrong. Cleland's Silver star citation reads:

"Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968 … during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh.

“When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Captain Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions.

“Continuing to expose himself, Captain Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment, which had been damaged by enemy fire.

“His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army."


Source (http://miller.senate.gov/floor/120903clelandnom.html)

That doesn't seem to have a damned thing to do with a grenade accident.

Your standards of fact-checking are no better than Coulter's.

While we're on the subject of Stupidity in Uniform, Manfred von Richthofen was shot down and killed because he pursued a plane he had ben unable to shoot down deep into enemy territory, alone and exposed to ground fire- a stupid act which he had explicitly warned against in his writings on air tactics.

I guess that negates whatever courage and dedication he had demonstrated previously, eh?

[crackmonkey]

He didn't drop ordnance on himself, but he picked up a grenade that someone else dropped. He has been honored for it repeatedly, and still is by the Dems. How many times have we been reminded that he 'lost his limbs on the battlefield of Viet Nam'. Of course, he lost his limbs in a rather dumb accident, but we rarely hear that part.
This accident certainly doesn;t negate his previous actions on the battlefield for which he was awarded a silver star.

[Charlie Monoxide]

There is no comparison between Ann Coulter and Al Franken. Ann Coulter spews invective hate (kinda redundant), Franken on the other hand writes "laugh out loud" satire.

I've read about half of "Slander" (by Coulter), but it was no fun. I kept hoping for some witty insightful view points, but kept getting sh!tty inciteful viewpoints.

Franken's latest book was a hoot. I hated finishing it. (I wanted more)

If Coulter is writing humor, I just don't get it.

Charlie (Franken does proclaim his hate of the right very vehemently though, but it's funny in context) Monoxide

[Zero]

Well, let's stop and think for a second, and stop reacting like Coulter would, ok? If he honestly thought it was his grenade, the pin would still have been in it, right? So that really doesn't make him a dumba$$, although it wasn't the smartest move ever, either. If he hadn't picked it up, he would have just lost both legs, and not the hand.
Can we get back to the Coulter-bashing now?;)

[headscratcher4]

Sure, we can talk about the stupid accident whereby this guy lost his limb...but what I want to know is why no one talks about the horrible accident where Anne Coulter was permanently brain damaged. God help the woman! Fortunately, we live in an age of medical miracles and there might someday be a cure. On the other hand, if all else fails, there is always lobotomy (unless she's already had that proceedure...).

[Zero]

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
There is no comparison between Ann Coulter and Al Franken. Ann Coulter spews invective hate (kinda redundant), Franken on the other hand writes "laugh out loud" satire.

I've read about half of "Slander" (by Coulter), but it was no fun. I kept hoping for some witty insightful view points, but kept getting sh!tty inciteful viewpoints.

Franken's latest book was a hoot. I hated finishing it. (I wanted more)

If Coulter is writing humor, I just don't get it.

Charlie (Franken does proclaim his hate of the right very vehemently though, but it's funny in context) Monoxide Franken, to my knowledge, has never wished for the destruction of conservative media outlets in a terrorist attack. Ann Coulter, on the other hand..."My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Are Franken and Coulter really just the same?

[crackmonkey]

The woman's a walking nighmare, no question. I don't mean to sound as if I endorse her writing; I wish she wouldn't support my party, if you know what I mean. I can't stand the bitch.

I merely don't see the distinction between what she does and what Franken does. Her tone is more cutting than his, and her delivery is less humorous. They both exist only to sneer at and mock the opposition. Strawman construction and demolition is their bread and butter.

[Ignatius]

I don't think the Coulter and Franken comparison is fair. The comparison of Coulter and Moore is more fair in that those two don't seem to care at all about facts, they just want to push their own agendas. I don't think you can find anybody on the left with the same amount of prestige as Coulter that shows as much malice, though.

I never see Moore or Franken invited to join serious discussion panels, but I have seen Coulter on them many times on CSPAN and CNN.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by jj
She calls Kerry a gigilo, while she uses her feminity and looks to try to sway peoples' political opinions

Wait a minute.

Since when does she have the "looks" to sway anyone's opinion to anything outside of "gross"?

I'd say she's a dog, but I have too much respect for the intelligence of dogs.

[Clancie]

I agree about Coulter, but you know what really bothers me a lot, Zero?

It's this....Why does the Right have all these over-the-top spokespeople that are everywhere in the media and so accepted (Coulter, Limbaugh, most hosts of politically oriented talk radio, O'Reilly, Hume...on and on...)

Where are the comparably influential critics/spokespeople on the left (Gore Vidal, for example, would be considered a "left" equivalent of Coulter)? Maybe I'm overlooking all of them, but Franken's really just a comedian and Michael Moore is just a liberal filmmaker. They really aren't very vocal or visible, either).

Thank God for "The Daily Show", but, then again, they mock everyone, right -and- left.

So, seriously...where are OUR vocal liberal firebrands, OUR spokespeople stirring thing up with their blunt criticisms of the conservatives and their views and policies?

(And namby-pamby...moderate...middle of the road... "kinda liberalism"... doesn't count! :) )

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Zero
Franken, to my knowledge, has never wished for the destruction of conservative media outlets in a terrorist attack. Ann Coulter, on the other hand...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are Franken and Coulter really just the same?


When it comes to getting paid, by getting a rise out of someone?

Yes...

Look who doesn't have anything better to do today...

Coulter is still in business because people get their panties all in a wad over what she says... She reminds me of a small child who has found she can make her playmates gasp and giggle by saying " doo doo " and " fart "...

I suspect her target audience is not the Retarded Right, and not the group that keeps her in business...

[Zero]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The woman's a walking nighmare, no question. I don't mean to sound as if I endorse her writing; I wish she wouldn't support my party, if you know what I mean. I can't stand the bitch.

I merely don't see the distinction between what she does and what Franken does. Her tone is more cutting than his, and her delivery is less humorous. They both exist only to sneer at and mock the opposition. Strawman construction and demolition is their bread and butter. Well, other than not advocating murder, Franken at least attempts to get his facts straight. Coulter makes things up, and then lists endnotes that don't back up the lies she's created, in order to pretend to be honest. When Franken creates a strawman, he labels it as such.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Clancie
I agree about Coulter, but you know what really bothers me a lot, Zero?

It's this....Why does the Right have all these over-the-top spokespeople that are everywhere in the media and so accepted (Coulter, Limbaugh, most hosts of politically oriented talk radio, O'Reilly, Hume...on and on...)

Where are the comparably influential critics/spokespeople on the left (Gore Vidal, for example, would be considered a "left" equivalent of Coulter)? Maybe I'm overlooking all of them, but Franken's really just a comedian and Michael Moore is just a liberal filmmaker. They really aren't very vocal or visible, either).

Thank God for "The Daily Show", but, then again, they mock everyone, right -and- left.

So, seriously...where are OUR vocal liberal firebrands, OUR spokespeople stirring thing up with their blunt criticisms of the conservatives and their views and policies?

(And namby-pamby...moderate...middle of the road... "kinda liberalism"... doesn't count! :) ) That was part of my point, actually...the "left" doesn't have anyone with the sort of media power that the Retarded Right has. Maybe the difference is that the "left" is right on most issues, and thinks that it is enough. On the other hand, the extreme right knows for a fact that Americans don't agree with them, so have become experts in marketing.

[Zero]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Wait a minute.

Since when does she have the "looks" to sway anyone's opinion to anything outside of "gross"?

I'd say she's a dog, but I have too much respect for the intelligence of dogs. jj means "compared to the elderly overweight guys who normally represent them in public". She is actually marginally attractive when placed between two really old wrinkly men.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Clancie
I agree about Coulter, but you know what really bothers me a lot, Zero?

It's this....Why does the Right have all these over-the-top spokespeople that are everywhere in the media and so accepted (Coulter, Limbaugh, most hosts of politically oriented talk radio, O'Reilly, Hume...on and on...)

Where are the comparably influential critics/spokespeople on the left (Gore Vidal, for example, would be considered a "left" equivalent of Coulter)? Maybe I'm overlooking all of them, but Franken's really just a comedian and Michael Moore is just a liberal filmmaker. They really aren't very vocal or visible, either).

Thank God for "The Daily Show", but, then again, they mock everyone, right -and- left.

So, seriously...where are OUR vocal liberal firebrands, OUR spokespeople stirring thing up with their blunt criticisms of the conservatives and their views and policies?

(And namby-pamby...moderate...middle of the road... "kinda liberalism"... doesn't count! :) )

This is about money and people like Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. are pandering to the majority. All they do is play on fears and reinforce believes and bam, money in the bank.

Michael Moore is not very vocal or visible?! You must be joking.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


This is about money and people like Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc. are pandering to the majority. All they do is play on fears and reinforce believes and bam, money in the bank.

Michael Moore is not very vocal or visible?! You must be joking. It is a relative thing. When Moore doesn't have anything to sell, no one is very interested.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
That was part of my point, actually...the "left" doesn't have anyone with the sort of media power that the Retarded Right has. Maybe the difference is that the "left" is right on most issues, and thinks that it is enough. On the other hand, the extreme right knows for a fact that Americans don't agree with them, so have become experts in marketing.

What about people like Sharpton, wouldn't they count as crazy left?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
That was part of my point, actually...the "left" doesn't have anyone with the sort of media power that the Retarded Right has. Maybe the difference is that the "left" is right on most issues, and thinks that it is enough. On the other hand, the extreme right knows for a fact that Americans don't agree with them, so have become experts in marketing.

Are you really this stupid? Please tell me you're joking.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Yeah, she's pretty insane.
:snip:
As a side note, a lot more people on this forum defended Moore than Coulter.

I don't know much about Moore, except his film "Bowling for Columbine" made me think. It left a lot of questions which I felt was a good thing.

But this is not about Moore! This is about that evil Ann Coulter. :D She may be insane, but she speaks and her peers in the industry (Al Franken, Dennis Miller) speak for a good deal of people in this country.

I think most people see the comedians and talk radio personalities for entertainment value and enjoy cheering the ones they agree with and yelling at the TV when they don't. It's a bit like wrestling, I believe.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


Are you really this stupid? Please tell me you're joking. Is there a reason you bothered posting in this thread?

[jj]

Originally posted by Grammatron


What about people like Sharpton, wouldn't they count as crazy left?


You mean that religious guy that the right is running on the democratic ticket?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


What about people like Sharpton, wouldn't they count as crazy left? Nah...he's vaguely a politician. I'm talking about the media wackos.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by tamiO


I don't know much about Moore, except his film "Bowling for Columbine" made me think. It left a lot of questions which I felt was a good thing.

But this is not about Moore! This is about that evil Ann Coulter. :D She may be insane, but she speaks and her peers in the industry (Al Franken, Dennis Miller) speak for a good deal of people in this country.

I think most people see the comedians and talk radio personalities for entertainment value and enjoy cheering the ones they agree with and yelling at the TV when they don't. It's a bit like wrestling, I believe.

Funny enough, I was more or less Moore follower until Bowling for Columbine. That made me very skeptical of the "truth" people put out, especially since what Moore put in BoC was not what one would call documentary material.

But you right, it's not about Moore :)

[tamiO]

In a way, we can be thankful for Ann Coulter, because people who emphatically agree with her and do so publically help you become aware of their extremist views and you will be better off for knowing. :)

I know better than to even mention her to my friend. I know because she has made it known that she likes Bush and she thinks it's great that he is not afraid to bring Christianity back into government. It's best we don't discuss politics. :D Or religion. Or Rebel Flags. LOL.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
Nah...he's vaguely a politician. I'm talking about the media wackos.

You saying Coulter is a politician?

Those are the same kind of people, they are insane, they play to the crowd and feed them lies just to have some power.

[Zero]

Originally posted by tamiO
In a way, we can be thankful for Ann Coulter, because people who emphatically agree with her and do so publically help you become aware of their extremist views and you will be better off for knowing. :)

I know better than to even mention her to my friend. I know because she has made it known that she likes Bush and she thinks it's great that he is not afraid to bring Christianity back into government. It's best we don't discuss politics. :D Or religion. Or Rebel Flags. LOL. Sort of "keeping your eye on the enemy"?:p

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Is there a reason you bothered posting in this thread?

To enquire about your apparent ignorance. Are you going to answer the question?



About Coulter, does anyone really take her seriously? I've thought she was a stupid c*nt from the first time I heard her speak. Every political hack (limbaugh, franken, moore, orielly ect..) has their gimmick. Being a raging bitch is Coulter's.


edited language

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


What about people like Sharpton, wouldn't they count as crazy left?

I would count Sharpton and Moore (and I also started disliking Moore because of Bowling), but I don't see a market on the left for the same proportion of malice that we see with Rush, Coulter, BOR, etc. Sure, there is obviously a big market for Bush-bashing books right now, but I can't image a figure from the left advocating that we hang the right for treason and actually gaining prestige because of it.

Any theories?

[Clancie]

Posted by TamiO

I think most people see the comedians and talk radio personalities for entertainment value and enjoy cheering the ones they agree with and yelling at the TV when they don't. It's a bit like wrestling, I believe.
Well, I kind of disagree with that, though I hope you're right. I think for a lot of people talk radio and talk tv is mostly where they get their "news". I hear a lot of people quoting Coulter (things we all know are completely untrue) and assuming its true because...she's well educated and articulate...she wrote a book...she's been invited to be on television.

Its easy to forget how few people read newspapers...or really seek out factual information...or are critical of what people on television say. I think a lot of people accept Limbaugh...Coulter...Drudge....O'Reilly as being factual even though they aren't.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ignatius


I would count Sharpton and Moore (and I also started disliking Moore because of Bowling), but I don't see a market on the left for the same proportion of malice that we see with Rush, Coulter, BOR, etc. Sure, there is obviously a big market for Bush-bashing books right now, but I can't image a figure from the left advocating that we hang the right for treason and actually gaining prestige because of it.

Any theories?

Well if you want those kinds of crazies on the left, you might want to look at environmental extremists and their spokespeople.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, I kind of disagree with that, though I hope you're right. I think for a lot of people talk radio and talk tv is mostly where they get their "news". I hear a lot of people quoting Coulter (things we all know are completely untrue) and assuming its true because...she's well educated and articulate...she wrote a book...she's been invited to be on television.

Its easy to forget how few people read newspapers...or really seek out factual information...or are critical of what people on television say. I think a lot of people accept Limbaugh...Coulter...Drudge....O'Reilly as being factual even though they aren't.

People who get the news from opinion programs should not be let outside with out proper supervision.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Clancie

...Limbaugh...Coulter...Drudge....O'Reilly as being factual even though they aren't.

Jinx, buy me a coke!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Clancie
......................................
I think a lot of people accept Limbaugh...Coulter...Drudge....O'Reilly as being factual even though they aren't.


This is the sad truth.. Just another side of ' the dumbing down of America ..

The same group of people are entertained by ' Reality ' shows, John Edward and Sylvia Browne...

I don't believe that the right or the left is particularly immune to this disease..

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well if you want those kinds of crazies on the left, you might want to look at environmental extremists and their spokespeople.

Maybe, an even better example would be PETA, but again these groups do not enjoy nearly as much popularity or prestige (and are certainly not as profitable) as some of the over-the-top attack dogs on the right. Why?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


To enquire about your apparent ignorance. Are you going to answer the question?


Frankly, I doubt you have the intellectual wherewithal to understand any answer I could give, or else you would never have asked the question to begin with.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, I kind of disagree with that, though I hope you're right.

I just can't have an objective view of the real world, living in south Alabama. It's just "differnt" here. :D

Around here, people are very extreme in their views. I am seemingly in the minority. Sometimes I wonder, though, how many are quietly atheists with no real party affiliations and watch C-SPAN with me in the mornings. I certainly don't go around here advertising my differences. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ignatius

...but I can't image a figure from the left advocating that we hang the right for treason and actually gaining prestige because of it.


You're right, you have to kill and oppress millions of people to gain "prestige" on the left.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Grammatron


People who get the news from opinion programs should not be let outside with out proper supervision. I think you are missing the point...you "get it", but plenty of people think that these "opinion programs" represent unbiased journalism.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Frankly, I doubt you have the intellectual wherewithal to understand any answer I could give, or else you would never have asked the question to begin with.

Nice dodge, your unwillingness (incapability?) to answer is noted.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


You're right, you have to kill and oppress millions of people to gain "prestige" on the left. You aren't really Ann Coulter in disguise, are you? Spewing nonsense and thinking it is rational discourse is a trademark that you both share.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Tony


You're right, you have to kill and oppress millions of people to gain "prestige" on the left.

Dude,
You know, every once in a while I read something by you that makes me think you are not as crazy or spiteful as I once thought, then you do something like this that brings me right back.

I'm still holding out hope for you, though.:p

[BTox]

Originally posted by Clancie

So, seriously...where are OUR vocal liberal firebrands, OUR spokespeople stirring thing up with their blunt criticisms of the conservatives and their views and policies?

(And namby-pamby...moderate...middle of the road... "kinda liberalism"... doesn't count! :) )

On NYC talk radio in the late 80s through the 90s there was Lynn Samuels. Easily as rabid from the left as the current ones are from the right. She pretty much faded away, though occassionally is on radio here.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony


You're right, you have to kill and oppress millions of people to gain "prestige" on the left.

Dear Ms. Coulter's testosterone lackey,

Prove it or stop saying it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Dude,
You know, every once in a while I read something by you that makes me think you are not as crazy or spiteful as I once thought, then you do something like this that brings me right back.


Why don’t you challenge my statement? The "left" lionizes murderers and tyrants (Stalin, Castro ect..), do you deny that?

I'm still holding out hope for you, though. :p

:D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony

The "left" lionizes murderers and tyrants (Stalin, Castro ect..), do you deny that? What?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Spewing nonsense and thinking it is rational discourse is a trademark that you both share.

:dl:

You need to look in the mirror before you start condemning other people for using your tactics. Spewing nonsense and incoherent hatemongering is the backbone of most of your posts.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


:dl:

You need to look in the mirror before you start condemning other people for using your tactics. Quit derailing my thread, dude.:k:

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony

The "left" lionizes murderers and tyrants (Stalin, Castro ect..), do you deny that? I'll deny it. What the heck are you talking about?

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Tony

Why don’t you challenge my statement? The "left" lionizes murderers and tyrants (Stalin, Castro ect..), do you deny that?
:D

Ok, I challenge that statement. Sure, you can point to fringe groups like ANSWER, but they do not enjoy anything like the mainstream popularity that Coulter and Rush do. Fringe groups on the right that organize militias and admire Hitler would be comparable to the people you are talking about.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Grammatron


People who get the news from opinion programs should not be let outside with out proper supervision.

So true. But there are few places to turn to other than ABCCBSNBCCNN News. Many newspapers/magazines provide even less moderate reportage.

Hmm. or maybe you meant something else?

[Clancie]

Posted by Diogenes

The same group of people are entertained by ' Reality ' shows, John Edward and Sylvia Browne...
Stereotyping and generalizing...much? :eek:


So...seriously....who -does- the left have as an equivalent to all these people we've mentioned? I can only think of Gore Vidal (someone who doesn't even speak out anymore, but at least once -did- express left-leaning/progressive...whatever...ideas.)
Posted by bTox

On NYC talk radio in the late 80s through the 90s there was Lynn Samuels. Easily as rabid from the left as the current ones are from the right. She pretty much faded away, though occassionally is on radio here.
Yes, gone...and no national audience, either. :(

I'm sure that, like Grammatron said, money has something to do with it. Maybe its just such a conservative country that the extreme right wing views are better tolerated by audiences than the equivalent on the left....:confused:

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ignatius


Maybe, an even better example would be PETA, but again these groups do not enjoy nearly as much popularity or prestige (and are certainly not as profitable) as some of the over-the-top attack dogs on the right. Why?

Like I said, they pander to the majority and majority in USA has a more conservative view on things.

Also, if you look at place like Los Angeles (where I live) the left (like PETA) are far more popular here than the right-wingers.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by hammegk


So true. But there are few places to turn to other than ABCCBSNBCCNN News. Many newspapers/magazines provide even less moderate reportage.

Hmm. or maybe you meant something else?

The following is my opinion:

Well, news services are suppose to provide you with information about what happened not how it happened. If you find a story of interest you can follow up on your on and seek other sources. Thanks to the Internet that is extremely easy to do. While you may not find out what happened with 100 percent certainty, odds are you will come extremely close.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What the heck are you talking about?

You've never seen Casto, Lenin, Stalin, Che, or Moa Zedong (sp?) put upon a pedestal by people on the left?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Clancie

I hear a lot of people quoting Coulter (things we all know are completely untrue) and assuming its true because...she's well educated and articulate...she wrote a book...she's been invited to be on television.
And "a lot of people" contend as you do. Could you provide a fact -- one of those things we all know are completely untrue?


I think a lot of people accept Limbaugh...Coulter...Drudge....O'Reilly as being factual even though they aren't.
Perhaps. An even larger number may think network news is factual and unbiased.


Maybe its just such a conservative country that the extreme right wing views are better tolerated by audiences than the equivalent on the left...
You might have something worth considering in that off-the-cuff throwaway. Thinking a bit more, how do you identify "extreme right wing views"?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Tony


You've never seen Casto, Lenin, Stalin, Che, or Moa Zedong (sp?) put upon a pedestal by people on the left?

That's kind of reaching there, even the aforementioned right stayed the hell away from Buchanan when he sort-of defended Hitler in his book.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
You've never seen Casto, Lenin, Stalin, Che, or Moa Zedong (sp?) put upon a pedestal by people on the left? Can't say that I have. Have you, and if so, where?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony


You've never seen Casto, Lenin, Stalin, Che, or Moa Zedong (sp?) put upon a pedestal by people on the left?

Sure some hippies back in the sixties may have, mostly to shock their parents. I seriously doubt that any of those people are held in high regard by anyone on the mainstream left. Coulter, on the other hand, does seem to be well regrded on the mainstream right.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Mousey Dung?

[Upchurch]

I believe the most common spelling is Mao Tse-tung

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Like I said, they pander to the majority and majority in USA has a more conservative view on things.

I don't mean to harp on you, Grams, but from what I can tell the nation is pretty much split 50-50. Even if it 60-40 that still doesn't explain why we don't see the equivalent mean-spirited talking heads on the left having this kind of audience. Also, you would think that since Republicans, as a group, have a better income and more education would mean that they wouldn't be as prone to this kind of sleazy pandering.

You're absolutely right about the $ thing. There is certainly a market for it, I'm just wondering why your side seems more prone to the more malicious types.


Also, if you look at place like Los Angeles (where I live) the left (like PETA) are far more popular here than the right-wingers.
So THAT'S why you're so bitter at times!;)

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Tony


You've never seen Casto, Lenin, Stalin, Che, or Moa Zedong (sp?) put upon a pedestal by people on the left?

Since you seem to think this is endemic, you should have no trouble finding 3-4 good examples of prominent liberals praising these people.

Time for the evidence, my friend. Otherwise we are left to beleive you are merely frothing at the mouth.

Lurker

[Clancie]

Posted by Hammegk

And "a lot of people" contend as you do. Could you provide a fact -- one of those things we all know are completely untrue?
Hmmm...maybe I should have said, "things we all should know are completely untrue."

Here's Coulter statements about liberals in America (from Treason). Do you agree with her, Hammegk?:


"Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence."

"Liberals invented the myth of McCarthyism to delegitimize impertinent questions about their own patriotism. They boast (lyingly) about their superior stance on civil rights. But somehow their loyalty to the United States is off-limits as a subject of political debate....Why can't we ask: Who is more patriotic — Democrats or Republicans? You could win that case in court."

"Liberals demand that the nation treat enemies like friends and friends like enemies..... Any evidence that anyone seeks to harm America is stridently rejected as "no evidence."

"Democratic senators, congressmen, and ex-presidents are always popping up in countries hostile to the United States -- Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Iraq -- hobnobbing with foreign despots who hate America."

"....Liberals want to be able to attack America without anyone making an issue of it."

Liberals relentlessly oppose the military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, and national defense. But if anyone calls them on it, they say he's a kook and a nut. Citing the unpatriotic positions of liberals constitutes "McCarthyism."
Agree? Disagree? Am I wrong and Coulter's right about all these "facts"?

[Clancie]

More from Coulter.... (that got too long, even as a list rather than her paragraphs)....

"...."McCarthyism" means pointing out positions taken by liberals that are unpopular with the American people.....the reason they sob about the dark night of fascism under McCarthy is to prevent Americans from ever noticing that liberals consistently attack their own country."

"Liberals unreservedly call all conservatives fascists, racists, and enemies of civil liberties with no facts whatsoever."

"Liberals malign the flag, ban the Pledge, and hold cocktail parties for America's enemies..."

"...In addition to opposing any action taken by your own country, "real patriotism" also consists of promoting the liberal agenda....Liberals don't mind discussing who is more patriotic if patriotism is defined as redistributing income and vetoing the Pledge of Allegiance. Only if patriotism is defined as supporting America do they get testy and drone on about "McCarthyism."

"...While consistently rooting against America, liberals have used a fictional event forged of their own hysteria -- "McCarthyism" -- to prevent Americans from ever asking the simple question: Do liberals love their country?"

Nice lady, isn't she? Very fair, knowledgeable and open minded. :rolleyes:

Coulter on "Treason" (aka liberals) (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/Books/GMA030624Coulter_Treason.html)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Ignatius

as a group, have a better income and more education would mean that they wouldn't be as prone to this kind of sleazy pandering.This same passage could have been used to describe the majority of wrestling fans during the 80's (I think it was the 80's). For some inexplicable reason, highly educated, upper-middle class people really got into "professional" wrestling. :con2:

Insidently though, I don't think it is highly educated people who are listening these ultra-conservative radio shows. The only two I catch during semi-regular commutes are O'Reilly and Savage. The folks I hear calling into these two shows rarely sound like intellectuals. More often than not, they basically parrot the host's opinion back to them.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ignatius

I don't mean to harp on you, Grams, but from what I can tell the nation is pretty much split 50-50. Even if it 60-40 that still doesn't explain why we don't see the equivalent mean-spirited talking heads on the left having this kind of audience. Also, you would think that since Republicans, as a group, have a better income and more education would mean that they wouldn't be as prone to this kind of sleazy pandering.

You're absolutely right about the $ thing. There is certainly a market for it, I'm just wondering why your side seems more prone to the more malicious types.

Is it 60-40? Majority of Americans may not vote but that doesn't mean they don't listen to those crap shows and read those books. Maybe the most vocal vote the least? :)

I see Moore as pretty mean-spirited toward the right, maybe he doesn't say the same thing but he's out there.

Also as I was typing this I remembered another person, his name escapes me at the moment but he draws Boondocks(sp?) comic strip. That guy is scary in his views and he call for violence against the right as well.


So THAT'S why you're so bitter at times!;)

You have no idea :)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Grammatron



I see Moore as pretty mean-spirited toward the right, maybe he doesn't say the same thing but he's out there.

Also as I was typing this I remembered another person, his name escapes me at the moment but he draws Boondocks(sp?) comic strip. That guy is scary in his views and he call for violence against the right as well.


Micheal Moore may well be mean spirited but I have yet to hear him call for the execution of conservatives.

I don't know who the other guy is.

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Upchurch
This same passage could have been used to describe the majority of wrestling fans during the 80's (I think it was the 80's). For some inexplicable reason, highly educated, upper-middle class people really got into "professional" wrestling. :con2:

Insidently though, I don't think it is highly educated people who are listening these ultra-conservative radio shows. The only two I catch during semi-regular commutes are O'Reilly and Savage. The folks I hear calling into these two shows rarely sound like intellectuals. More often than not, they basically parrot the host's opinion back to them.

I know this is just anecdotal, but the Principal Engineer and the IS Manager at my workplace are both big Rush fans. I'm sure you are right that their fans don't exactly represent the intellectual wing of the Republican party. I still don't understand the broad appeal, though.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron

Also as I was typing this I remembered another person, his name escapes me at the moment but he draws Boondocks(sp?) comic strip. That guy is scary in his views and he call for violence against the right as well.


Aaron McGruder? What, are you kidding?

Sorry--I've met Aaron a couple of times. He's very quiet, low-key, genuinely nice guy, and doesn't advocate violence against anyone. Yeah, he uses his strip to mouth off his frustrations, but it's a comic strip. It's not intended to be taken that seriously.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ignatius


I know this is just anecdotal, but the Principal Engineer and the IS Manager at my workplace are both big Rush fans. I'm sure you are right that their fans don't exactly represent the intellectual wing of the Republican party. I still don't understand the broad appeal, though.

It's easier to turn your brain off than actualy come up with your own opinion? :)

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon


Aaron McGruder? What, are you kidding?

Sorry--I've met Aaron a couple of times. He's very quiet, low-key, genuinely nice guy, and doesn't advocate violence against anyone. Yeah, he uses his strip to mouth off his frustrations, but it's a comic strip. It's not intended to be taken that seriously.

I'm not talking about the strip, I'm talking about interviews with the guy; have you ever heard interviews with him?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Lurker


Since you seem to think this is endemic, you should have no trouble finding 3-4 good examples of prominent liberals praising these people.

Time for the evidence, my friend. Otherwise we are left to beleive you are merely frothing at the mouth.

Lurker

The easiest example is Noam Chomsky. Read much of his screed?

[Ignatius]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Is it 60-40? Majority of Americans may not vote but that doesn't mean they don't listen to those crap shows and read those books. Maybe the most vocal vote the least? :)
[/]
That is the closest thing I have heard so far that explains this. I think you may be on to something.
[B]
Also as I was typing this I remembered another person, his name escapes me at the moment but he draws Boondocks(sp?) comic strip. That guy is scary in his views and he call for violence against the right as well.

I read the Boondocks strip and think it is hilarious. I've always taken it that he is making fun of these kids and their radical views more than he is propping them up.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I don't know who the other guy is. Aaron McGruder (http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/) is a cartoonist. He certainly doesn't like GWB, but I don't remember him ever advocating violence against conservatives.

Ted Rall (http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial_content.asp?sFile=tr040217), on the other hand is probaly closer to Gram is picturing as far as anti-conservative cartoonists.

[Lurker]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lurker


Since you seem to think this is endemic, you should have no trouble finding 3-4 good examples of prominent liberals praising these people.

Time for the evidence, my friend. Otherwise we are left to beleive you are merely frothing at the mouth.

Lurker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Originally posted by hammegk


The easiest example is Noam Chomsky. Read much of his screed?

No, have not read him. Does he express admiration for any of the aforementioned tyrants? Also, maybe I am not in the know, but when has Chomsky been seen on TV lately? When does he get interviewed by FoxNews or asked to be a guest commentator in a roundtable discussion?

Just wondering.

Lurker

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Aaron McGruder (http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/) is a cartoonist. He certainly doesn't like GWB, but I don't remember him ever advocating violence against conservatives.

Ted Rall (http://www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial_content.asp?sFile=tr040217), on the other hand is probaly closer to Gram is picturing as far as anti-conservative cartoonists.

Thanks Upchurch. I can't form too much of an opinion on either one of them until I see more of their stuff. When/if I see either one advocating forcibly converting people to any particular religion or advocating executing people based on their political views, I will hold them in the same contempt as Anne Coulter. I don't see that yet, but I will admit that I haven't seen much from either of them.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

The easiest example is Noam Chomsky. Read much of his screed? I googled him. Most of what I found describes him as radical crack-pot and few actually labeled him as radical left-wing crack-pot. In other words, he isn't a crazy leftist, he's just crazy.

I don't think he is awfully reprentative of liberals or the Democratic party.

[Clancie]

Yes, Hammegk, when does anyone ever see or hear Chomsky? I would wager you would be hard pressed to find 10 people who even know who he is or, especially, what he thinks about anything.

And, re: Coulter. What did you think of her statements about liberals (above)?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Clancie



I'm sure that, like Grammatron said, money has something to do with it. Maybe its just such a conservative country that the extreme right wing views are better tolerated by audiences than the equivalent on the left....:confused: No, I think it has to do more with the fact that the extreme right packages their more bizarre rhetoric in a better way than moderates or liberals do...maybe because they don't worry about that pesky reality thing. A moderate or liberal will tell you that you can have more stuff if you are willing to pay more taxes for it. The "true" conservative will tell you that you should work harder and pay for it yourself. The extreme right person will tell you that if you lower taxes for the wealthy, more money will magically appear in your pockets.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I'm not talking about the strip, I'm talking about interviews with the guy; have you ever heard interviews with him?

Occasionally. When did he advocate violence against the right?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
I think it has to do more with the fact that the extreme right packages their more bizarre rhetoric in a better way than moderates or liberals do...

Just when you make a potentially valuable insight you go on and say something like this....

A moderate or liberal will tell you that you can have more stuff if you are willing to pay more taxes for it.

:dl:

So, according to a moderate "liberal", the secret to having more stuff is letting the government steal more money from you? Double speak is fun.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Thanks Upchurch. I can't form too much of an opinion on either one of them until I see more of their stuff. If you're any kind of comics fan, I recommend Boondocks. I think it's vaguely reminisent of the pop culture side of Bloom County. (God, I miss Bloom County.)

Ted Ralls isn't really worth the bandwidth to pull up.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony
You've never seen Casto, Lenin, Stalin, Che, or Moa Zedong (sp?) put upon a pedestal by people on the left? Tony? Who does this?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


Just when you make a potentially valuable insight you go on and say something like this....



:dl:

So, according to a moderate "liberal", the secret to having more stuff is letting the government steal more money from you? Double speak is fun. See what I mean? Paying taxes is your patriotic duty. You see it as theft. See how the right re-writes reality to make people think they are logical?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Tony? Who does this?

You want a name?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hmmm...maybe I should have said, "things we all should know are completely untrue."

Here's Coulter statements about liberals in America (from Treason). Do you agree with her, Hammegk?:
[list]

"Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence."


Let's chat about one. A couple quick comments: All those votes for Gore-Hil-Bil are not "liberals". I'd guess 99.9999% are sheep; the worrysome problem is that remaining 0.0001% are not, and those are the libs Ann is attacking imo.

So take her first statement: Why should you, or I, or Upchurch "know" that to be completely untrue? I don't chat with (or hear) Soros, or Hil-Bil, or McCauliffe, and don't know what they think. I am pretty sure that if Universal Health Care arrives none of them or their friends will ever use it. I look at the dem agenda as they publicize it and as history records it, and that seems to fit pretty well with Ann's comment; what now?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony


You want a name?

I can't speak for Upchurch, but I would. A recent one, not someone who stated ana dmiration for one of them in 1965 or something

[Ignatius]

I've got it (I think). As an ideology, the right tends to believe in moral absolutes. People that identify themselves as going to church often are much more likely to vote Republican. The right has a pretty clear platform (strong military, small gubmint, God bless America). The left encompasses a very broad and heterogenus combination of philosophies and interests. There are free market democrats, union members, academics and intellectuals, African-Americans, etc., etc... Many of these groups have contradictary ideas. They are much more likely to have secular leanings and believe in moral relativism.

That may be, at least in part, why the right is more prone to listen to strident absolutists like Coulter while the left may have the equivalent types in each sub-group, they are not as likely to have universal appeal to Dems.

Now I can sleep tonight.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zero
No, I think it has to do more with the fact that the extreme right packages their more bizarre rhetoric in a better way than moderates or liberals do...maybe because they don't worry about that pesky reality thing. A moderate or liberal will tell you that you can have more stuff if you are willing to pay more taxes for it. The "true" conservative will tell you that you should work harder and pay for it yourself. The extreme right person will tell you that if you lower taxes for the wealthy, more money will magically appear in your pockets.

I don't know how we went from talking about Coulter to Freemarket economics but those are two different topics.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
See what I mean? Paying taxes is your patriotic duty.

No it isn't. Do you have any evidence of this?

See how the right re-writes reality to make people think they are logical?


Hmm, you're the moron who said.

A moderate or liberal will tell you that you can have more stuff if you are willing to pay more taxes for it.

Impeccable logic there. Take my money so I can have more stuff. While your at it, shoot yourself in the head so you can live longer.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I can't speak for Upchurch, but I would.

Well, I can't give you one. But of course I never said a figure on the left praises those people. I said people on the left. You're asking me to show you something I never contended.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Clancie

"Liberals malign the flag, ban the Pledge, and hold cocktail parties for America's enemies..."

[/B]

OK, most of them are a crock, but that one is dead on. ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony


Well, I can't give you one. But of course I never said I figure on the left praises those people. I said people on the left. You're asking me to show you something I never contended. actually, you saidThe "left" lionizes murderers and tyrants (Stalin, Castro ect..), do you deny that?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon


Occasionally. When did he advocate violence against the right?

I heard it second-hand on a show as a clip from when he appeared on some panel (perfect source I know). He was talking about how Rice and Bush are murderers and that when he meat Rice he was afraid to question her because she might kill him and that the only way to get rid of this evil murdering administration was through a revolution because since they steal elections they won't be giving the power up freely. That was more or less a paraphrase except for the revolution thing.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tony


Well, I can't give you one. But of course I never said I figure on the left praises those people. I said people on the left. You're asking me to show you something I never contended.

Actually, you didn't even say "people on the left." You said "the left."


The "left" lionizes murderers and tyrants (Stalin, Castro ect..), do you deny that?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Ignatius
I've got it (I think). As an ideology, the right tends to believe in moral absolutes. People that identify themselves as going to church often are much more likely to vote Republican. The right has a pretty clear platform (strong military, small gubmint, God bless America). The left encompasses a very broad and heterogenus combination of philosophies and interests. There are free market democrats, union members, academics and intellectuals, African-Americans, etc., etc... Many of these groups have contradictary ideas. They are much more likely to have secular leanings and believe in moral relativism.

That may be, at least in part, why the right is more prone to listen to strident absolutists like Coulter while the left may have the equivalent types in each sub-group, they are not as likely to have universal appeal to Dems.

Now I can sleep tonight.

I think you have a point there. My own observation is that the Right seems much more organized and focused than the left. When I see an anti-abortion rally, for instance, it seems pretty focused on the topic. When I saw Anti-war rallies, it seemed that there were a million different agendas represented, some with only peripheral connection to the subject they were allegedly protesting (the war).

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ignatius
I don't think the Coulter and Franken comparison is fair. The comparison of Coulter and Moore is more fair in that those two don't seem to care at all about facts, they just want to push their own agendas. I don't think you can find anybody on the left with the same amount of prestige as Coulter that shows as much malice, though.

I never see Moore or Franken invited to join serious discussion panels, but I have seen Coulter on them many times on CSPAN and CNN.

Moore was on the "Charlie Rose" show once.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Ignatius
I've got it (I think). As an ideology, the right tends to believe in moral absolutes. People that identify themselves as going to church often are much more likely to vote Republican. The right has a pretty clear platform (strong military, small gubmint, God bless America). The left encompasses a very broad and heterogenus combination of philosophies and interests. There are free market democrats, union members, academics and intellectuals, African-Americans, etc., etc... Many of these groups have contradictary ideas. They are much more likely to have secular leanings and believe in moral relativism.

That may be, at least in part, why the right is more prone to listen to strident absolutists like Coulter while the left may have the equivalent types in each sub-group, they are not as likely to have universal appeal to Dems.

Now I can sleep tonight.

That sounds like a good answer to me. Now you should write a book about it and tell everyone else how wrong their analyses of the situation is :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch
actually, you said


Yep, and after you asked what I was talking about, I went on to clarify:

You've never seen Casto, Lenin, Stalin, Che, or Moa Zedong (sp?) put upon a pedestal by people on the left?

Why the dishonesty?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I heard it second-hand on a show as a clip from when he appeared on some panel (perfect source I know). He was talking about how Rice and Bush are murderers and that when he meat Rice he was afraid to question her because she might kill him and that the only way to get rid of this evil murdering administration was through a revolution because since they steal elections they won't be giving the power up freely. That was more or less a paraphrase except for the revolution thing.

But nothing about advocating violence against the right?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


Well, I can't give you one. But of course I never said I figure on the left praises those people. I said people on the left. You're asking me to show you something I never contended. Well, you claimed that "the left" lyonizes tyrants and dictators. Where are those people who worship them?

I'm talking about Ann Coulter ...I can point to the specific person, and point out the specific things she has said. Where is your specific person, what did they specifically say, and how many millions of books have they sold in the past few years?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Cleon

Actually, you didn't even say "people on the left." You said "the left." Jinx!

Regardless, Tony, you did say that the left lionizes various world tyrants. Were you just making that up or do you have an example?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tony

Why the dishonesty? What dishonesty? You're the one making unsupported claims. Are you or are you not saying that the left or people on the left lionize the listed tyrants and/or put them on pedistals?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Tony


Yep, and after you asked what I was talking about, I went on to clarify:

Clarify? No. Backpedal? Absolutely.

"The left" became "people on the left," and now we're talking individuals.

Tony, do you deny that the right lionizes Hitler?

Excuse me, I meant "people on the right."

OK, a few people here and there. Why the dishonesty????

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon


But nothing about advocating violence against the right?

Well it didn't sound to me like it was a peaceful revolution; it sounded like he wanted people to overthrow the current government as the only solution for change.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Tony


Well, I can't give you one. But of course I never said a figure on the left praises those people. I said people on the left. You're asking me to show you something I never contended.

If people (as a group) on the left did something that means several people (as individuals) did it. If the left as a whole lionizes murderers it should not be difficult to find examples of individuals within the left showing that they do so. Capece?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Jinx!

Regardless, Tony, you did say that the left lionizes various world tyrants. Were you just making that up or do you have an example? "Jinx" again!

LOL, I guess we're all waiting for the answer to this one!

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well it didn't sound to me like it was a peaceful revolution; it sounded like he wanted people to overthrow the current government as the only solution for change.

But even then, overthrowing a government isn't necessarily violent.

Certainly McGruder, "scary" though you may find him, didn't say anything on the level of "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

[Zero]

Originally posted by Cleon


Clarify? No. Backpedal? Absolutely.

"The left" became "people on the left," and now we're talking individuals.

Tony, do you deny that the right lionizes Hitler?

Excuse me, I meant "people on the right."

OK, a few people here and there. Why the dishonesty???? Actually, that isn't a fair example...at least you could point to a prominent Republican who loved Hitler at some point. You know, like the president's grandfather... or possibly the governor of California:"I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it." That's Ah-nold himself, according to Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98982,00.html).*



(*Note*: I don't actually think the Terminator is a Nazi sympathizer, but at least I can come up with a quote to support the claim)

[Zero]

Originally posted by Cleon


But even then, overthrowing a government isn't necessarily violent.

Certainly McGruder, "scary" though you may find him, didn't say anything on the level of "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." How many NY Times bestsellers does this McGruder person have?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Zero
"Jinx" again!

LOL, I guess we're all waiting for the answer to this one! Perhaps.

But I just remembered who I was talking to. Honesty (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28853&perpage=40&pagenumber=2), isnt' in Tony's character.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Cleon


But even then, overthrowing a government isn't necessarily violent.

Certainly McGruder, "scary" though you may find him, didn't say anything on the level of "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Of course it's not, did I say it was? If I did I apologize for the confusion.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Perhaps.

But I just remembered who I was talking to. Honesty (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28853&perpage=40&pagenumber=2), isnt' in Tony's character. Should I laugh, feel a little pity, or be slightly scared?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Zero
Should I laugh, feel a little pity, or be slightly scared? I felt pity at the time. Now, I mostly just feel contempt and a little hacked off I wasted even more time on him.

[TillEulenspiegel]

"But even then, overthrowing a government isn't necessarily violent."

Agreed. We overthrow the government every four Yrs. or so.

Damn I love Jefferson!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem is that, because she has no standards or ethics, she's always willing to take her nonsense up another notch to draw people in...sort of like MTV.

She's going to flash her tit?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

She's going to flash her tit? AUP, the woman doesn't have any cleavage to flash. She's skin and bones.

[hammegk]

You could check her website for the latest pics. ;)

And what a bunch of fibbers. Anybody here who really thinks he wouldn't nail her given any opportunity and a few beers? At worst, one bag. :o

[Zero]

Originally posted by hammegk
You could check her website for the latest pics. ;)

And what a bunch of fibbers. Anybody here who really thinks he wouldn't nail her given any opportunity and a few beers? At worst, one bag. :o LOL!! No one mentioned beers!! Pour a six-pack down my throat and shove a sock down hers, and she's do-able...

[Clancie]

Um...I guess this isn't the time to mention that I wish Michael Moore was more telegenic....:p

Oh, and Hammegk,

You talked about something, imo, unrelated, (health care) after apparently approvingly, quoting this from Coulter:


Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence.
So...if you think this is not "obviously untrue" as I do...how would it be true?

Does "everyone" really say that liberals love America? Coulter obviously doesn't say it.

Is it true, as she says, that whenever the nation is attacked, liberals side with the enemy? Let's see some examples of all these legions of liberals who signed up to help Hitler...the North Koreans in the 50's....the USSR (Cold "War")...Ho Chi Minh during Vietnam....Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein...

I can't see why she's given the platform she is. So many of her comments really seem so incredibly stupid.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Clancie


I can't see why she's given the platform she is. So many of her comments really seem so incredibly stupid. That's an interesting point. "Liberals" generally don't put complete idiots on display with the frequency that "conservatives" do. We're still waiting to see the list of bestselling "liberal" authors, TV or radio talk show hosts who promote dictatorships, or any of the other nonsense right-wing strawmen. For those of us who make complaints about the attitudes on "the right" however, we can easily point to at least a half-dozen right-wing TV and radio "personalities" who are selling tons of books.(if only to themselves, but that is another issue)

[WildCat]

I never even heard of Ann Coulter until I heard so many people complaining about her here, she can't be all that popular.

But maybe that's just because I don't have cable TV.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL!! No one mentioned beers!! Pour a six-pack down my throat and shove a sock down hers, and she's do-able...

Free beer! I'll be in that. Leave them at my front door.

[NightG1]

Originally posted by Upchurch
AUP, the woman doesn't have any cleavage to flash. She's skin and bones.

Combined with the smell of Marlboro's and Bourbon in her breath. Yum Yum.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Wait a minute.

Since when does she have the "looks" to sway anyone's opinion to anything outside of "gross"?

I'd say she's a dog, but I have too much respect for the intelligence of dogs.
Hey, apparently people actually have sex with crack whores.
Degustibus non disputatum. There's no arguing with taste.

[Zero]

Moving on...


...let's not stoop to Coulter's level, shall we? Her physical attractiveness is no measure of her diseased intellect.;)

[Dorian Gray]

I always come late to these things.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zero
...and don't tell me you are actually defending that lying psychotic whore, are you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Strong assertions, no facts, next case. Has she lost any lawsuits for libel or slander? You mean like FOX News did?

You're right, you have to kill and oppress millions of people to gain "prestige" on the left. I thought the Saudis were friends with the Bushes, not the left.

Why don’t you challenge my statement? The "left" lionizes murderers and tyrants (Stalin, Castro ect..), do you deny that? We're talking about the AMERICAN left and right, you moron. Or do you want to answer for the right killing millions of people (Hitler, etc.)?

I apologize if I've covered old ground. Well, you know what I mean. This ground is actually ancient.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I heard it second-hand on a show as a clip from when he appeared on some panel (perfect source I know). He was talking about how Rice and Bush are murderers and that when he meat Rice he was afraid to question her because she might kill him and that the only way to get rid of this evil murdering administration was through a revolution because since they steal elections they won't be giving the power up freely. That was more or less a paraphrase except for the revolution thing.

Since there have been several revolutions in Eastern Europe around and after 1990, some of them bloody (Romania), some of them completely non-violent (East Germany), advocating revolution does not, in itself, mean advocating violence. By the way, the revolution in (the former Soviet republic) Georgia wasn´t exactly a bloodbath, either.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Zero
LOL!! No one mentioned beers!! Pour a six-pack down my throat and shove a sock down hers, and she's do-able...

Ann Coulter looked so good to me, good to me
But evey girl looks good after NINE CORONAS

(with apologies to the Knack and the group that parodied the Knack in the late 80s)

Actually, knowing me when I get drunk, I would more likely go up to her and tell her, in a very loud voice, that she is one ugly skank. Butt ugly. I can see it now, "You have to be the ugliest skank I've ever seen. It's between you and Rexella, and it's close."

Sorry, she's not my type.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Don't you hate it that liberals all make sweeping generalizations...
Man If I've said it once , I've said it a million times..Don't Exaggerate!.

[hammegk]

Per Ann Coulter
Everyone says liberals love America, too. No they don't. Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence.


Originally posted by Clancie

You talked about something, imo, unrelated, (health care) after apparently approvingly, quoting this from Coulter:
Yeah, I could have made a better comment. Does the definition: conservatives -- tend to think people are responsible for their own actions; liberals -- tend to think societal pressures are responsible for individual acts. The health care point being that whenever liberals (with power to accomplish things) get something done "for you", it is at someone else's expense, and the liberal in question will never be directly effected by the program due to their money & status.


So...if you think this is not "obviously untrue" as I do...how would it be true?

Does "everyone" really say that liberals love America?
Yellow journalism, bombast, hyperbole, and the like are the way politics play out in public. Logical niceties go by the wayside, but too many intellectuals act as if finding flaws of any kind in steps leading up to a conclusion negate the conclusion -- what is really negated is the logic. I assume "everyone", and "obviously true" are red herrings used for affect more than effect.


Is it true, as she says, that whenever the nation is attacked, liberals side with the enemy? Let's see some examples of all these legions of liberals who signed up to help Hitler...the North Koreans in the 50's....the USSR (Cold "War")...Ho Chi Minh during Vietnam....Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein...
Again you miss the point. Ted Kennedy, or the Oppenheimers, or your favorite Hollywood big-mouth don't "sign up". The dolts who do that are called "outright traitors". The liberals who count wield influence by acquaintance, marriage, money, whatever and are powerful people. Mr. Soros, another example, Bill may have garnered enough cash & friends to have left the trailer park for good, and Hil has always been connected.


I can't see why she's given the platform she is. So many of her comments really seem so incredibly stupid.
They are certainly overstated, but I doubt she is stupid, and wrong is not the given you hold either imo based on history as I read it & current events as they are.

Does someone who advocates the use of US military force only when OKed by the UN sound like a patriot & leader you want, assuming you are a US citizen and voter?


I'm sorry I picked as an example one of her comments that relies on a grounding in the Cold War and 80 years of geopolitics to begin to understand.


Originally posted by Dorian Gray

You mean like FOX News did?
Er, ok. Who did Ann sue for libel/slander? I must have missed it.


Wonder when the first actionable complaint concerning words on a bbs will make the grade? j/k.

[Clancie]

Posted by Hammegk

Clancie

Is it true, as Coulter says, that whenever the nation is attacked, liberals side with the enemy? Let's see some examples of all these legions of liberals who signed up to help Hitler...the North Koreans in the 50's....the USSR (Cold "War")...Ho Chi Minh during Vietnam....Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein...

Hammegk

Again you miss the point. Ted Kennedy, or the Oppenheimers, or your favorite Hollywood big-mouth don't "sign up". The dolts who do that are called "outright traitors".

The liberals who count wield influence by acquaintance, marriage, money, whatever and are powerful people. Mr. Soros, another example, Bill may have garnered enough cash & friends to have left the trailer park for good, and Hil has always been connected.

Hammegk,

What is a "traitor" if it is not someone "siding with the enemy whenever America is attacked"? :confused: This is, imo, most definitely a definition of a traitor. And, to Coulter, it is synonymous with "liberal".

As to your examples...could you please elaborate on how Ted Kennedy...and Oppenheimer...and Soros...have "sided with the enemy" when America is attacked? I'm really curious what your reasoning is for choosing all three of these examples to support your claim.

Personally, I'm appalled that Coulter's statement resonates with you. Do you also agree with her that McCarthyism is a fiction made up by liberals to scapegoat true patriots? (That's another on my "obviously not true" list....but maybe I'm mistaken there, too! :confused: )

[Zero]

Clancie,

I think the general attitude from the Retarded Right is that fi you don't agree with every single statement and policy of GWB towards, say, Iraq, then you are obviously a close dear personal friend of Saddam Hussein.

[Dorian Gray]

Zero, if you do agree with the policies, then you most definitely ARE a friend of the Saudis. Well, I don't mean YOU, I mean ONE.

Don't you hate it that liberals all make sweeping generalizations...
Man If I've said it once , I've said it a million times..Don't Exaggerate!. It's either make sweeping generalizations or pose false dichotomies, one of the two.

[Clancie]

Yes, Zero, I guess that explains it.

Its just a little strange how comfortable the Right is with the idea that Saddam was a murderous despot for decades, but it was a-okay as long as he was Reagan/Cheney/Rumsfeld's murderous despot (And, of course, even Bush, the Father, willingly sold the Kurds down the river...first encouraging them to rebel and then letting Saddam slaughter them because Bush was more concerned about the power balance in the Middle East"....

Its just difficult to understand the publicity that wackos like Anne Coulter get for claiming that Republican policies are somehow morally always right and anyone who says otherwise is obviously a liberal (and that "liberal" = "traitor"....)

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I googled him. Most of what I found describes him as radical crack-pot and few actually labeled him as radical left-wing crack-pot. In other words, he isn't a crazy leftist, he's just crazy.

I don't think he is awfully reprentative of liberals or the Democratic party.

Not really Upchurch.

You might want to take a look at his Manufacturing Consent Propaganda Model.

It really hits the nail in the head when it comes to why people buy into all of this rightwing garbage for the most part.

And to all the people that say Noam Chomsky is anti-american. HE IS NOT!

In fact on several occassions he has said how good our nation is when it comes to free speech rights and how France has been more Authoritarian when it comes to freedom of speech.

In fact, here are the 8 ways that people have tried to smear Noam Chomsky:


Eight Ways to Smear Noam Chomsky
Lawrence McGuire
CounterPunch, October 9, 2002
I just read a recent article in The Nation, 'The Left and 9/11' (September 23, 2002) by Adam Shatz, which purports to be a measured analysis of the differences between the so-called 'Left' in the United States over the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. In reality the article is a clever misrepresentation of Chomsky, and of others who share his view of U.S. foreign policy.

Just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there is more than one way to smear Chomsky. I counted eight in Shatz's article.

1. Accuse him of being 'anti-American':

"The MIT linguist and prolific essayist Noam Chomsky has emerged as a favorite target of those keen on exposing the left's anti-Americanism."

"While Falk [unlike Chomsky] did not evaluate the war through the distorting prism of anti-Americanism..."

I'll point out the obvious: Noam Chomsky is American, so how can he be against himself? For that matter I am American and I've never read anything Chomsky wrote that was anti-me. If Shatz means that Chomsky consistently opposes the foreign policy of the United States Government, then why doesn't he say it? The phrase 'the distorting prism of anti-Americanism' has no political meaning. It is the responsibility of any citizen of a democracy to oppose the policy of their government if they think it is illegal, immoral, or both.

2. Accuse Chomsky of being unsympathetic to the victims of the September 11th atrocities:

"Although Chomsky denounced the attacks, emphasizing that "nothing can justify such crimes," he seemed irritable in the interviews he gave just after September 11, as if he couldn't quite connect to the emotional reality of American suffering. He wasted little time on the attacks themselves before launching into a wooden recitation of atrocities carried out by the American government and its allies."

"The problem was not so much Chomsky's opposition to US retaliation as the weirdly dispassionate tone of his reaction to the carnage at Ground Zero, but, as Todd Gitlin points out, "in an interview undertaken just after September 11, the tone was the position."

This reminds me of King Lear's rage when Cordelia doesn't express her love in the proper way, while his other daughters Regan and Goneril do so with hypocritical effusions of false affection. As Kent says in response 'Nor are those empty hearted whose low sounds reverb no hollowness'.

Since when, in any serious assessment of a person's political position, do you judge a person according to how you perceive their tone rather than by the words they speak? I wonder what would have satisfied Shatz and Gitlin? For Chomsky to break down crying when talking about September 11th? By what almighty right do they judge any person's emotional response to a human catastrophe?

3. Accuse, by implication, Chomsky and others of actually being happy (the code word here is 'glee') that 3,000 people were killed in a terrorist attack on September 11th. Shatz is more careful here. He repeats an assertion of Michael Walzer, editor of Dissent, about certain unnamed people who felt 'glee' over the attacks, then he uses the word as if people had actually felt 'glee', then he tells us that Micahel Walzer's focus of attack is Chomsky.

"In "Can There Be a Decent Left?", an essay in the spring Dissent, Michael Walzer--who lent his signature to "What We're Fighting For," a prowar manifesto sponsored by the center-right Institute for American Values--accused the antiwar left of expressing "barely concealed glee that the imperial state had finally gotten what it deserved." (When I asked him to say whom he had in mind, he said: "I'm not going to do that. Virtually everyone who read it knew exactly what I was talking about.")

"Unlike most Americans, leftists didn't have to ask the question "Why do they hate us?"--and not because of any glee that the chickens had come home to roost.

"At Dissent's first editorial board meeting after the attacks, the liveliest topic of conversation was reportedly Chomsky, whom Walzer appears to regard as an even greater menace to society than Osama himself."

This is the classic sneaky attack by innuendo. If Shatz wants to repeat such slanderous accusations about Noam Chomsky then he should have the courage to do so openly.

4. Accuse Chomsky of trivializing the victims of September 11th :

"In a clumsy analogy, Chomsky likened the attacks to Clinton's bombing of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan (wrongly suspected of manufacturing biological weapons), which resulted in one direct casualty. According to Chomsky, because the destruction of the plant placed tens of thousands of Sudanese at risk of malaria and other lethal diseases, it was "morally worse" than 9/11."

Exactly what makes this a 'clumsy' analogy? Is it true that Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant? Yes. Shatz says it was 'wrongly suspected of manufacturing biological weapons'. Wrongly suspected by whom? The U.S. Government knew without a doubt that it was a pharmaceutical plant. So here Shatz repeats the propaganda of the Clinton administration, by singing the constant refrain of the apologists for state power: 'oh, it was just a mistake'. How many people died because the pharmaceutical plant was destroyed? Thousands, according to the sources Chomsky cited. Do their lives have equal value to the lives of the people killed on September 11th? If so, then what is the problem with the analogy? Perhaps you agree, perhaps you disagree, but the implicit assumption is that Chomsky should not equate the suffering of poor people in Africa with that of the victims of September 11th.

5. Misrepresent Chomsky's proposal for treating the September 11th as a crime against humanity rather than an act of war:

"And yet there are some settings in which police methods can hardly be expected to work, like Afghanistan. "Which was the court where these guys could be summoned?" asks Todd Gitlin. "Were subpoenas to be dropped at the mouths of the caves of Tora Bora?" What's more, the call for "police work" rather than war sounded somewhat disingenuous, coming as it did from some of the same people who used to call for the abolition of the CIA, an organization to which much of the policing would presumably be entrusted."

What Schatz doesn't point out here is the glaringly obvious fact that Chomsky and others called for September 11th to be treated as a crime against humanity and dealt with by the United Nations, according to international law. So, why would the C.I.A. be entrusted with policing overseen by the United Nations? The International Criminal Court, which the Bush Administration has refused to join, and has also tried to destroy in its cradle, is precisely the type of court that could have dealt with an international crime of this magnitude.

6. Misrepresent Chomsky's view of the motivations for American foreign policy, pretending as if he thinks that 'we' are somehow 'evil':

"One can differ with Chomsky on Afghanistan and still see much of value in his critique of the war on terrorism. "I don't believe that we're ideologically committed to do evil," says playwright Tony Kushner. "On the other hand, what Chomsky says about the globalization of the war is absolutely true. It's the beginning of an unapologetic imperium, and that's quite frightening."

In fact, Chomsky always analyzes U.S. foreign policy in terms of domestic concentrations of political power.

7. Repeat the smear that Chomsky was 'wrong' about Cambodia:

"Chomsky's framework for understanding US foreign policy is appealing because it appears to see through the fog, while allowing those who accept it to feel like they're on the side of history's angels. His world is an orderly, logical one in which everything is foretold. The shape events assume may be unexpected, but the events themselves are the predictable outcome of this or that American policy. Applied to Vietnam, East Timor and Palestine, Chomsky's analysis of American imperialism has demonstrated uncommon prophetic powers. Applied to Cambodia and the Balkans, it has prevented him from comprehending evil that has not been plotted from Washington."

Shatz doesn't even attempt to offer any proof for the assertions of this paragraph. He can state it as if it is true because similar false accusations have been launched for years, to the point where people think 'oh, it must be true'. This is the same smear that far-right ideologue Richard Bennett used in his CNN debate with Chomsky a few months ago.

8. Create a false representation of two wings of the so-called Left, with Chomsky and Christopher Hitchens at opposite extremes offering two 'paradigms' of U.S. foreign policy:

"Despite their strengths, since September 11 both these paradigms have proved to be unreliable compasses. Chomsky's jaundiced perspective on American power makes it virtually impossible to contemplate the possibility of just American military interventions, either for self-defense or to prevent genocide. Hitchens's intoxicated embrace of American power has left him less and less capable of drawing the line between humanitarian intervention and rogue-state adventurism. What the left needs to cultivate is an intelligent synthesis, one that recognizes that the United States has a role to play in the world while also warning of the dangers of an imperial foreign policy."

Exactly why is Chomsky considered to have a 'jaundiced' perspective? This is simply another accusation without evidence. It's easy to find Chomsky's view on the issue of humanitarian intervention. If the concentrations of power, (the people who own and control huge corporations, and who thus have the dominant influence over U.S. foreign policy) have not changed, then it is ridiculous to think the U.S. Government is going to militarily intervene in other countries in a humanitarian way. You can paint a tiger pacific blue but its teeth and appetite won't disappear with its stripes.

The last paragraph of Schatz's article shows just how blind he is to the reasons ordinary Americans and people all over the world oppose U.S. foreign policy:

"Why does the left oppose war on Iraq? Do we oppose it because the US government's reasons for going to war are always deceitful, or because the United States has no right to unseat foreign governments that haven't attacked us first, or because this war is ill-timed and is likely to backfire? Do we oppose it because it's unilateral and illegal under international law, or because the American government has failed to put forward a coherent vision of Iraq after Saddam? As with Afghanistan, there are more than two ways to be for or against an intervention in Iraq. Like the war on terror, the debate on the left over the uses of American force has no end in sight."

Nowhere does Shatz mention the obvious, the huge glaring fact that apologists for mass murder like Christopher Hitchens have refused to acknowledge: many Americans are opposed to U.S. foreign policy because they recognize the suffering it causes to thousands of other human beings. This is the same reason that many Americans rely on Noam Chomsky, and other courageous intellectuals, for an understanding of that policy.

More civilians were killed in Afghanistan by U.S. bombing than were killed on September 11th 2001 in New York City. In addition many more died in the refugee camps they fled to because of the bombings. As The Nation itself has pointed out, Afghanistan did not become a better place for its people because of U.S. bombing. As the New York Times has pointed out, Al Queda is more dangerous now than it was before the bombing.

Chomsky's crime, for the left and the right, has always been the same: he takes seriously the bedrock moral assumption that all human beings in the whole wide world have lives of equal value. There is no such thing as 'our victims' and 'their victims'.

Schatz's article, by misrepresenting Chomsky and other opponents of the bombing of Afghanistan, serves to prepare the way for many on the Left to support the war in Iraq by ignoring the victims there also. No doubt opponents of the war in Iraq will be accused of not developing what Shatz calls "an informed critique that transcends pacifist platitudes."

In fact, Chomsky has been developing that informed critique for decades.

And as for myself, I would far rather speak out with 'pacifist platitudes' than repeat mindlessly the militarist platitudes of 'humanitarian intervention', otherwise known as war; which is in fact mass murder.

I have a brief diagram explaining the Propaganda Model below.

Here are the 5 filters of the Propaganda model in a nutshell.




Concentration of ownership and profit orientation of the mass media

The advertising licence to do business

The dependence on sources

"Flak" and the enforcers

Uncritical Belief in market liberalism/anti-communism as a control mechanism


An entire article that explains these points better can be found here:


http://68.198.125.9:8383/elfrank/gov/MediaProject/Chomsky_Propaganda.pdf

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, Zero, I guess that explains it.

Its just a little strange how comfortable the Right is with the idea that Saddam was a murderous despot for decades, but it was a-okay as long as he was Reagan/Cheney/Rumsfeld's murderous despot (And, of course, even Bush, the Father, willingly sold the Kurds down the river...first encouraging them to rebel and then letting Saddam slaughter them because Bush was more concerned about the power balance in the Middle East"....

Its just difficult to understand the publicity that wackos like Anne Coulter get for claiming that Republican policies are somehow morally always right and anyone who says otherwise is obviously a liberal (and that "liberal" = "traitor"....)
The pot calling the kettle black syndrome.
Haven't you noticed when someone accuses another of something they are usually guilty of that very thing. Projection.
Also shows extreme weakness and insecurity in their position to not see that there can be differring, yet reasonable viewpoints.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by subgenius

The pot calling the kettle black syndrome.
Haven't you noticed when someone accuses another of something they are usually guilty of that very thing. Projection.
Also shows extreme weakness and insecurity in their position to not see that there can be differring, yet reasonable viewpoints.

Or, that basing actions -- and geopolitics -- on the belief that human nature has changed for the better since the last time history provided the outcome of a specific situation is at best deluded, at worst insane.

That and the faith that us v them is no longer in play (us =6billion+) and that might does not prevail.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, Zero, I guess that explains it.

Its just a little strange how comfortable the Right is with the idea that Saddam was a murderous despot for decades, but it was a-okay as long as he was Reagan/Cheney/Rumsfeld's murderous despot (And, of course, even Bush, the Father, willingly sold the Kurds down the river...first encouraging them to rebel and then letting Saddam slaughter them because Bush was more concerned about the power balance in the Middle East"....

Its just difficult to understand the publicity that wackos like Anne Coulter get for claiming that Republican policies are somehow morally always right and anyone who says otherwise is obviously a liberal (and that "liberal" = "traitor"....)

The faith seems to be that if the person labels themselves "Republican", whatever they do is ok. There is also the fallacy that if they can point to a similar situation that a Democrat was in, then a Republican politician can do anything he or she wants to. This leads to a contradiction that I have never seen adequately addressed: if it was wrong for the Democrat (and sure as hell anything a Democrat does is wrong(and possibly treason)), then how can it be ok for the Republican?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by ktesibios


Wrong. Cleland's Silver star citation reads:

"Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968 … during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh.

“When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Captain Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions.

“Continuing to expose himself, Captain Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment, which had been damaged by enemy fire.

“His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit and the United States Army."


Source (http://miller.senate.gov/floor/120903clelandnom.html)

That doesn't seem to have a damned thing to do with a grenade accident.

Your standards of fact-checking are no better than Coulter's.

While we're on the subject of Stupidity in Uniform, Manfred von Richthofen was shot down and killed because he pursued a plane he had ben unable to shoot down deep into enemy territory, alone and exposed to ground fire- a stupid act which he had explicitly warned against in his writings on air tactics.

I guess that negates whatever courage and dedication he had demonstrated previously, eh?

Beg to differ. I am somewhat skeptical of your source. Zell Miller is not an unbiased source....but here are some:

One of the most detailed accounts of Cleland's life was written by Jill Zuckman in a lengthy piece for The Boston Globe Sunday magazine on Aug. 3, 1997:

Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.

Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future.


Interestingly, all news accounts told the exact same story for 30 years -- including that Cleland had stopped to have beer with friends when the accident occurred (a fact that particularly irked Al Hunt).


"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)


"(Cleland) didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (The Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)


"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)


The story started to change only last year when the Democrats began citing Cleland's lost Senate seat as proof that Republicans hate war heroes. Indeed, until the myth of Republicans attacking Cleland for his lack of "patriotism" became central to the Democrats' narrative against George Bush, Cleland spoke only honorably and humbly about his accident. "How did I become a war hero?" he said to The Boston Globe reporter in 1997. "Simple. The grenade went off."

[Zero]

Rik, I don't mean to be nitpicky....but what the f*** are you talking about?

[varwoche]

I have a remedy for Coulter... contemplate the fact that she is a laughable self parody, doing more to harm her causes than advance them.

varwoche

[subgenius]

Originally posted by varwoche
I have a remedy for Coulter... contemplate the fact that she is a laughable self parody, doing more to harm her causes than advance them.

varwoche
The old "give 'em enough rope" theory. I like it.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Zero
Rik, I don't mean to be nitpicky....but what the f*** are you talking about?

Let me guess,...you were the slow child in class? That's okay. Nothing to be ashamed of. Go here (http://waynesville.k12.mo.us/Schools/Wood/7th%20grade/remedialreading.html) they'll help.

And remember....your slow mental processes are not your fault! You likely just ingested too much lead-filled tap water or something.
;)
-z

[hammegk]

Here is her latest salvo:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040219.shtml

Interestingly, all news accounts told the exact same story for 30 years – including that Cleland had stopped to have beer with friends when the accident occurred (a fact that particularly irked Al Hunt).

"He told the pilot he was going to stay awhile. Maybe have a few beers with friends. ... Then Cleland looked down and saw a grenade. Where'd that come from? He walked toward it, bent down, and crossed the line between before and after." (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 5, 1999)

"[Cleland] didn't step on a land mine. He wasn't wounded in a firefight. He couldn't blame the Viet Cong or friendly fire. The Silver Star and Bronze Star medals he received only embarrassed him. He was no hero. He blew himself up." (Baltimore Sun, Oct. 24, 1999)

"Cleland was no war hero, but his sacrifice was great. ... Democratic Senate candidate Max Cleland is a victim of war, not a casualty of combat. He lost three limbs on a long-forgotten hill near Khe Sanh because of some American's mistake ..." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Sept. 29, 1996)

The story started to change only last year when the Democrats began citing Cleland's lost Senate seat as proof that Republicans hate war heroes. Indeed, until the myth of Republicans attacking Cleland for his lack of "patriotism" became central to the Democrats' narrative against George Bush, Cleland spoke only honorably and humbly about his accident. "How did I become a war hero?" he said to the Boston Globe reporter in 1997. "Simple. The grenade went off."

Cleland even admitted that, but for his accident, he would have "probably been some frustrated history teacher, teaching American government at some junior college." (OK, I got that wrong: I said he'd probably be a pharmacist.)

Someone is lying. I wish it were more obvious who.

BTW, I tend to interpret her words, especially the books, as allegorical morality tales. :)

[Zero]

Originally posted by hammegk
Here is her latest salvo:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20040219.shtml



Someone is lying. I wish it were more obvious who.

BTW, I tend to interpret her words, especially the books, as allegorical morality tales. :) Really? As in she serves as an example of immorality, thereby showing how you should NOT behave?

[Clancie]

Republicans are such hypocrites. Here's how they campaigned against Cleland (and, Coulter-style, even managed to imply a treasonous connection with Bin Ladin--though there is none ).

Washington Post on reelection campaign against Cleland (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Max_Cleland_070303.htm)

Unlike our President (and, of course, Cheney..and Rumfeld...:( ), Cleland was badly wounded (lost both legs and his hand) while serving his country in Vietnam.

For the armchair war mongers to impugning his patriotism to win an election is just....repulsive and disgusting.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zero
Really? As in she serves as an example of immorality, thereby showing how you should NOT behave?

Glad you have finally decided to take a stand on something, Right vs. Wrong. Which Coulter behavior do you consider most "immoral"?



Clancie: Have you read the discussions in this thread on Cleland? If so what part don't you understand?

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Zero [/i]

>>She lies with more frequency and consistancy than I thought was humanly possible.


Coulter has never lied. And that must be a fact since you have not been able to cite a alleged "lie". When critics question her facts, as in the case of Max Cleland, they only give Coulter a chance to rub their noses in it. The trouble with liberals is they simply cannot face the truth.


-- Rouser

[Zero]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Zero [/i]

>>She lies with more frequency and consistancy than I thought was humanly possible.


Coulter has never lied. And that must be a fact since you have not been able to cite a alleged "lie". When critics question her facts, as in the case of Max Cleland, they only give Coulter a chance to rub their noses in it. The trouble with liberals is they simply cannot face the truth.


-- Rouser LOL!!!

That's cute. Do you do any other tricks?:p

[Zero]

Originally posted by hammegk


Glad you have finally decided to take a stand on something, Right vs. Wrong. Which Coulter behavior do you consider most "immoral"?


What I find most unethical is the fact that she(and far too many Republicans in general) clings to the lies she has told even after having been corrected many times by many different people.

[Clancie]

Posted by hammegk

Clancie: Have you read the discussions in this thread on Cleland?
Yes

If so what part don't you understand?
What don't I understand? Where to begin? :confused: There is so much....

I don't understand how anyone here would not see that the Republican campaign against Cleland was a lie--a malicious, totally unfair smear of his patriotism by Chambliss.

I don't understand how anyone would find Chambliss's ad acceptable or defend it by trying to imply that Cleland did not lose his legs due to serving his country (voluntarily, btw) in Vietnam.

The Chambliss ad against Cleland was a page from McCarthy's (now Coulter's) method of "guilt by association". I don't see why anyone would feel otherwise--or feel that Coulter's view of liberals and history has any credibility whatsoever.

Fortunately there were two Republican senators -- John McCain and Chuck Hagel--who -did- denounce the ad. (Of course, unlike Coulter, both of them had the perspective of being Vietnam veterans themselves).

I also don't understand how nasty, ill-informed liars like Coulter have any acceptance or credibility whatsoever from anyone posting to this thread.

And, hammegk, do you agree with her about liberals today...and about Joe McCarthy in the 50's?

Even O'Reilly had to disagree with her about McCarthyism.....Do you really find her rewrite of history and her own neo-McCarthyism compelling? How is that even possible? I can't understand that either. :confused:


[unrelated note: is your avatar TS Eliot? I've always wondered... ]

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Zero
What I find most unethical is the fact that she(and far too many Republicans in general) clings to the lies she has told even after having been corrected many times by many different people.

It´s called the "Great Lie method". You tell a lie which is so outrageous that everybody believes it, because they think no-one would invent such a thing and expect people to believe it.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zero
What I find most unethical is the fact that she(and far too many Republicans in general) clings to the lies she has told even after having been corrected many times by many different people.

OK, it's ethics rather than morals. And I agree lies were and are being told. Once Ann loses the first lawsuit brought against her for libel/slander we will agree she lied on that issue.

Until then, he said-she said is all any of have,and you don't agree with the message. Tough. Does she resort to sophistry: probably ; hyperbole: of course; selectivity: sure; other standard political-media discourse techniques: yup. Does that negate the issues she makes: nope; the logic she uses, often.

Originally posted by Clancie

And, hammegk, do you agree with her about liberals today...and about Joe McCarthy in the 50's?

Even O'Reilly had to disagree with her about McCarthyism.....Do you really find her rewrite of history and her own neo-McCarthyism compelling? How is that even possible? I can't understand that either.
I'm a bit curious. What do you know about HUAC (that wasn't McCathy, BTW) and the red-scare? Where did you learn it, and why do you have faith in what you learned? Does the fact that "guilt by association" is the best one could manage deny any real possibility that the charge being made is true albeit not provable in a ct of law?

People play politics; glad to hear you find the methods unsuitable. As I noticed somewhere (in a sig, maybe), "The US system is in a difficult state; too late to change via ballots; too early to start shooting the b*astards.

Hypocracy? I find substituting "choice" for "baby murder" just that.

[Zero]

Wow, that's an interesting viewpoint, hammegk...she isn't officially a liar until she loses a lawsuit? What sort of bogus fake ethics do you subscribe to?

It is easy to point to specific cases to show she is a liar...must I sue her in order to make the facts more "real"? She lies on a regular basis, and those lies have nothing to do with "he said-she said". She makes substantive claims that can be chacked against evidence and shown to be false, which is different from disagreeing on an opinion. If I say "Bush is scummy", that is an opinion. If I say "Bush misrepresented his tax cut during a debate with Al Gore", we can check the transcript of the debate against the text of the proposed tax cut, and look for discrepancies. If those discrepancies exist, it is not a matter of opinion or viewpoint; it is a matter of fact.

In teh same way, you can check what Coulter claims against the endnotes she provides, and check to see if they match up. Since her statements don't match the sources she claims, that makes her a liar, again as a matter of fact.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zero
....If those discrepancies exist, it is not a matter of opinion or viewpoint; it is a matter of fact.

In the same way, you can check what Coulter claims against the endnotes she provides, and check to see if they match up. Since her statements don't match the sources she claims, that makes her a liar, again as a matter of fact.

LOL. Discrepancies in whose *opinion*? See the problem?

Take the kinds of cases deemed to "prove" Coulter a liar that I've seen so far; she will cite 3 or 4 articles/sources to back her viewpoint, someone finds she cited the wrong source in one of them; ergo, she is a "liar". Even then, that says nothing of the actual truth-value of the overall assertion she is making. To do that effectively one must marshall facts that support the other side of the controversy.

Other than the anecdotal "she's a liar"; what do you CITE as a lie she was caught making -- especially one that significantly impacts her basic assertion?


Chaos: What "Big Lie" in particular do you have in mind?

[Zero]

Originally posted by hammegk


LOL. Discrepancies in whose *opinion*? See the problem?

Take the kinds of cases deemed to "prove" Coulter a liar that I've seen so far; she will cite 3 or 4 articles/sources to back her viewpoint, someone finds she cited the wrong source in one of them; ergo, she is a "liar". Even then, that says nothing of the actual truth-value of the overall assertion she is making. To do that effectively one must marshall facts that support the other side of the controversy.

Other than the anecdotal "she's a liar"; what do you CITE as a lie she was caught making -- especially one that significantly impacts her basic assertion?

I don't have the time or space to even outline all the lies she tells...and you probably would rationalize it all away anyhow. Tell me, though, do you believe her general assertions, that all non-rightwing people are traitors, etc?

[Zero]

This (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#Coulter) is a good place to start looking into the truth about Ann Coulter. Spinsanity is a nonpartisan site which focuses on media and political spin, and does a great job of researching the truth behind the misrepresentations of people like Coulter.

And the best part? When you get done reading up on Coulter, you can see the work they've done on Michael Moore, just for balance.

[hammegk]

Which salon.com writers' screed did you find most compelling? Or do you find character assassination valid only when denigrating
conservatives?

And yup, Moore is a "liberal gadfly", Coulter a lying bitch.

Have you actually read Slander? I have. I note the Lies have now become "misrepresentations" in your words.


Zero
Tell me, though, do you believe her general assertions, that all non-rightwing people are traitors, etc?
Tell me, do you understand the difference between all of the Loony-Left(yeah, I can do it too), and all those LL's in positions of influence & power?

How many traitors would be acceptable to you if any existed in the latter group? Would you contend none did?

[Zero]

Originally posted by hammegk
Which salon.com writers' screed did you find most compelling? Or do you find character assassination valid only when denigrating
conservatives?

And yup, Moore is a "liberal gadfly", Coulter a lying bitch.

Have you actually read Slander? I have. I note the Lies have now become "misrepresentations" in your words. I usedthe words "misrepresentations" to represent the sum of teh work done by Spinsanity. Coulter is still a lying bitch. :D Michael Moore only qualifies as a "liberal gadfly" because he lies when he feels it will get his point across better. Coulter's lies are her point, which is a big difference.

"Character assasination" is only unfair when it is dishonest. Since Coulter is actually a lying bitch, she carries the blame for the characterization, not me. ;)

[Clancie]

Posted by hammegk

I'm a bit curious. What do you know about HUAC (that wasn't McCathy, BTW) and the red-scare? Where did you learn it, and why do you have faith in what you learned? Does the fact that "guilt by association" is the best one could manage deny any real possibility that the charge being made is true albeit not provable in a ct of law?
Interesting, hammegk. You do not respond in any way whatsoever to the questions I asked you. :confused:
My questions....

And, hammegk, do you agree with her about liberals today...and about Joe McCarthy in the 50's?
As for my answer to you...I've read the work of many excellent respected historians on McCarthyism* (i.e. not relied on hack political propagandists like Coulter! :eek: ).

*further resources provided on request, if you are interested :)

[hammegk]

Dear Loony Lefties, I am more than happy to agree to disagree with the positions you hold dear.

You know, like "choice" = "baby murder", or "Racial Equality"= "Affirmative Action"; need more?

[Zero]

Originally posted by hammegk
Dear Loony Lefties, I am more than happy to agree to disagree with the positions you hold dear.

You know, like "choice" = "baby murder", or "Racial Equality"= "Affirmative Action"; need more? Oh, so you have decided to leave planet Earth, and post from Bizarro World?

None of that has anything to do with Ann Coulter, or her string of career-making lies.

[Zero]

On further reflection, I begin to understand your position, hammegk...or at least I think I do. Your view on abortion is incredibly strong, and therefore it colors your perspective on wider issues. Maybe you have gotten to the point that you support anyone who is publically against abortion, and oppose anyone who isn't against it.

The problem is, you find yourself embracing some strange bedfellows, like Ann Coulter, who is anti-abortion, but is also a very dishonest person. While I am generally on the same side as Michael Moore on many issues, I also have no problem in pointing out that he has a bad habit of playing fast and loose with reality when it suits him. Can you not do the same with Ann Coulter, while not denying your own viewpoint?

[Clancie]

Posted by hammegk

Dear Loony Lefties, I am more than happy to agree to disagree with the positions you hold dear.

You know, like "choice" = "baby murder", or "Racial Equality"= "Affirmative Action"; need more?
Hammegk,

Is this your answer to "Do you agree with Coulter that people commit treason when they dissent in a democracy?"

Or was it your answer to "Do you agree with Coulter that McCarthy was a great American hero and liberals just make him look bad to hide their own traitorous Communist identification?"

Or was it your answer to "Is that avatar T.S. Eliot?"

Sorry, but your above answer makes about as much sense for any of them....

Maybe Zero is right, but if so, I'm going to have to streeetttccch my imagination to understand your posts in the future, if they're really all about your feelings toward abortion. Because, frankly, I don't see what "McCarthyism"..."the smear tactics used against Max Cleland"...or "dissent = treason" has to do with abortion issues at all. If that's your touchstone for everything else....then I don't get it. :confused:

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Coulter has never lied. And that must be a fact since you have not been able to cite a alleged "lie". When critics question her facts, as in the case of Max Cleland, they only give Coulter a chance to rub their noses in it. The trouble with liberals is they simply cannot face the truth.:roll:

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Clancie
Interesting, hammegk. You do not respond in any way whatsoever to the questions I asked you. :confused:Welcome to hammegk-world! Enjoy your stay!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Clancie


Is this your answer to "Do you agree with Coulter that people commit treason when they dissent in a democracy?"
I hadn't seen that statement attributed to Ann, and I actually don't think she holds such a belief.


Or was it your answer to "Do you agree with Coulter that McCarthy was a great American hero and liberals just make him look bad to hide their own traitorous Communist identification?"
Nor that, although I'd say the statement has possible truth-value.


Or was it your answer to "Is that avatar T.S. Eliot?"
No.


Maybe Zero is right, but if so, I'm going to have to streeetttccch my imagination to understand your posts in the future, if they're really all about your feelings toward abortion. Because, frankly, I don't see what "McCarthyism"..."the smear tactics used against Max Cleland"...or "dissent = treason" has to do with abortion issues at all. If that's your touchstone for everything else....then I don't get it. :confused:
Phooey. My stand on abortion has zero to do with my defense of Ann, as do what answers I might give to hypothetical & irrelevant questions (unless you are seeking my advice -- or absolution -- and if so this public bbs is not a good place imo) sometimes asked of me.

Re abortion, my stand is simple: I characterize the act as Wrong, yet like other people may agree in a specific circumstance this Wrong actually be performed to offset an even greater Wrong.

Two Wrongs never equal Right. :(


I don't agree with everything M. Moore does, but after seeing Bowling for Colombine don't see what requires him to be tarred & feathered by any person or group. He sharpened his ax as best fit his needs; Same comment on his GM 'expose'. You are the people who need to lighten up: your seeming belief that Ann is always a liar and therefore never correct on any issue is what I attack.

Shooting the messenger has never determined the truth or falsity of the message.

Just my 2cts......

[Zero]

What is Ann Coulter's message, besides hatred of anything and anyone she doesn't agree with? And how does her constant lying make it more likely that her "message" is true, rather than less likely?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by hammegk

I hadn't seen that statement attributed to Ann, and I actually don't think she holds such a belief.


She may not have said it, but she sure does imply it.

[Clancie]

Posted by hammegk

Phooey. My stand on abortion has zero to do with my defense of Ann...

Well, you've got to like a guy who uses the word "phooey" in an argument. :)

I hadn't seen that statement attributed to Ann, and I actually don't think she holds such a belief.
Yes, I shouldn't have put quote marks...these are my paraphrases of Coulter.
1. People (aka those who disagree with Republicans, aka "liberals") commit treason when they dissent in a democracy
and
McCarthy was a great American hero and liberals just make him look bad to hide their own traitorous Communist identification
re: the first, she clearly -does- say that liberals are treasonous because they dissent (she doesn't use the word "dissent", but that's the action she describes, without qualification). I think the paraphrase is fine.

re: the second. Coulter -has- called McCarthy an American hero. She -has- written that liberals have vilified this great man for their own propaganda purposes (which I conclude is because, again according to Coulter, we liberals are ourselves enemies of America). If you read her stuff, this is her view.
....I'd say the statement has possible truth-value.
You would? That's just sad. :(
You are the people who need to lighten up: your seeming belief that Ann is always a liar and therefore never correct on any issue is what I attack.
I haven't said she's -always- a liar. Maybe she isn't. But the writings of hers that I've read are, imo, all right-wing propaganda without redeeming truth or fairness or historical accuracy. (So, yes, what I know from her so far are lies. I'm still waiting for someone to post "the good stuff"....)

[Zero]

Originally posted by Clancie


I haven't said she's -always- a liar. Maybe she isn't. But the writings of hers that I've read are, imo, all right-wing propaganda without redeeming truth or fairness or historical accuracy. (So, yes, what I know from her so far are lies. I'm still waiting for someone to post "the good stuff"....) Yeah!! Where is "the good stuff", where she makes a claim about something that can be verified, and it is actually confirmed by sources? I'd like to see some substantial idea that she puts forward, that we can check against reality, and see if she gave it to us straight, or if she misrepresented reality in order to make her "point".