Ann Coulter's Christmas Msg of Peace

Quote:

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
i waited all day for that post!

bless you!

But I didn't sneeze.

All day?? Geez! Get out of the house!

It's a beautiful sunny day today.

Well.. at least it is here in California........

town is crazt from christmas returns ill stay indoors!

ick, glad I read this post-holiday. Not sure why she seems to be ranting about the autopen thing. There are many more important reasons why Rumsfield stinks & it's no longer being voiced by just the "liberals"

Click here

Quote:

the G-man said:
From her webiste:

To The People Of Islam:

Just think: If we'd invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU'D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW!
Merry Christmas

If this is genuine, I don't think it's very funny, nor is it at all in any kind of Christian spirit.

Quote:

THE Franta said:
Click here

Um, I went to the site, looking for some kind of punch line, or for it to be a spoof site.

Nope.

I've heard her mentioned a lot, I knew she was staunchly right wing (to each their own) and a lot of liberals hate her. I always thought that the latter was down to political bias.

Nope.

She's fucking nuts.

If any of you wonder why America has a (generally unfair) bad reputation abroad, it's because of people who say things like that.

I know that most Americans from either side of the political divide are good people, but unfortunately there are always idiots in the public eye who say shit like this crazy bitch and the people who don't spend time with Americans in some capacity just get to see the crazy shit.

I know most of what she says has some slight tongue in cheek, but she says them so consistently it's hard not to think that she doesn't at least partly believe them, as well.

Frankly, a lot of what she says is so stupid it's not really even worth laughing at.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
That is one cracked nutjob just waiting for a good shrink.

One could say the same thing about Ted Rall.

Quote:

the G-man said:
From her webiste:

To The People Of Islam:

Just think: If we'd invaded your countries, killed your leaders and converted you to Christianity YOU'D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW!
Merry Christmas

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:

If this is genuine, I don't think it's very funny, nor is it at all in any kind of Christian spirit.

For all the liberal attempts to marginalize Coulter as a some kind of whacko, I think she very skillfully uses parody and clever hyperbole to point out the flaws in liberal thought, and in other biased anti-American criticism of the United States.

Like Rush Limbaugh, she is hated by liberals because she uses so well the precise tactics of mockery and emotionally charged rhetoric that liberals use toward conservatives.

What exactly does Ann Coulter say that's so "whacko", as Steve T, Animalman and other have alleged ?

In the above quoted comment, Coulter is basically saying that if we (the U.S.) really were the opressive evil imperialists that so many liberals, muslims and other enemies consistently allege, and we really fulfilled their worst fears and toppled their Islamic governments, they would be exposed to the benevolent traditions of American "evil Christian" culture, and find it a hundred times more tolerable than the oppressive dictators and Islamic repression that these nations already have.
And Coulter points this out beautifully with her playful irreverence toward these flawed liberal and islamic views.

I fail to see what is crazy or whacko in her comments, which are the conservative equivalent of the political commentary liberals churn out weekly, from Al Franken to any number of evening talk shows to Doonesbury to Saturday Night Live.

More examples of Ann Coulter's writings and style are posted in this prior topic:

Ann Coulter
HERE

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Like Rush Limbaugh, she is hated by liberals because she uses so well the precise tactics of mockery and emotionally charged rhetoric that liberals use toward conservatives.

With all due respect, I think Rush Limbaugh is disliked because, frankly, he's a hypocritical blowhard. He dedicates enormous amounts of time to denigrating drug users and the unemployed, despite having not only accepted numerous welfare checks(something he himself attributed to simple laziness on his part; laziness being another aspect of modern society he regularly bemoans) but also spent time in a drug rehabilitation clinic.

Perhaps years ago, before he bought into his own hype as Mr. Talk Radio, he might have really made an impact as a controversial, "in your face" political commentator, but now he's just a joke, much like Michael Moore.

Quote:

What exactly does Ann Coulter say that's so "whacko", as Steve T, Animalman and other have alleged ?

I did not use the term "whacko", but I do think that Coulter's expressed desire to convert the Islamic people to Christianity(something she's gone on about before, mind you) is pretty creepy.

As I said, I do think there's some slight jest to her comments, but I also think she partly believes what she's saying, considering how often she says them, in varying contexts.

Really, I think there's a lot of hate in Coulter's words, which is a big turnoff for me. Having political opinions and expressing them is great, but hating an entire group of people simply because of their general political ideology? I'll never understand that. That, to me, seems a little...well, "whacko".

Perhaps if she focused on individal issues, or even individual people, and attacked them, her views would be easier to digest. Instead, she presents her own interpretations of liberal justifications as the unwavering norm.

Quote:

In the above quoted comment, Coulter is basically saying that if we (the U.S.) really were the opressive evil imperialists that so many liberals, muslims and other enemies consistently allege, and we really fulfilled their worst fears and toppled their Islamic governments, they would be exposed to the benevolent traditions of American "evil Christian" culture, and find it a hundred times more tolerable than the oppressive dictators and Islamic repression that these nations already have.

I guess we all read what we want into comments like thse. I just don't see that, at least, not in that specific comment. Perhaps if she had expanded the thought, it wouldn't be as open to interpretation, or as potentially offensive.

Quote:

And Coulter points this out beautifully with her playful irreverence toward these flawed liberal and islamic views.

Clearly, in this case, your idea of beauty and playfulness differs greatly from my own.

Quote:

I fail to see what is crazy or whacko in her comments, which are the conservative equivalent of the political commentary liberals churn out weekly, from Al Franken to any number of evening talk shows to Doonesbury to Saturday Night Live.

I don't recall ever seeing Franken or Saturday Night Live(perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but are you suggesting that SNL is a heavily liberal program?) saying something as equally drastic as what Coulter says. I'd say Franken's conservative counterpart is probably someone like Ben Stein, or Dennis Miller, both of whom I like, as well.

Franken actually has a background in comedy and displays a wide variety of humor in his writing, including self-deprication. That's something I've never seen Coulter exhibit, which is a big reason why I find her far less endearing as a personality.

its sad how satire is lost on so many.....

Animalman,

I disagree with your assessment of Rush Limbaugh. As was explored in a prior topic, Limbaugh was not using drugs for recreation, the guy had back surgery, and he was using the drugs (although illegally, beyond his prescribed amounts) to alleviate pain, not to get high. And he did pursue treatment when his drug-use behavior reached an addictive level.

I don't know about Limbaugh being on welfare. There's a difference between using welfare for a short time to get back on your feet, and spending years or a lifetime on it.
MANY have been on welfare to get a new start, such as rock star Tina Turner, while they struggled to begin a career and get off welfare.
Also, Rush or most people are not the same people they were 20 years ago, any more than George W. Bush or any number of Democrats are. People grow, they become responsible, and take accountability for their prior actions. I believe Rush has done this. As opposed to denying what occurred, as others have done.

Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
What exactly does Ann Coulter say that's so "whacko", as Steve T, Animalman and other have alleged ?

I did not use the term "whacko", but I do think that Coulter's expressed desire to convert the Islamic people to Christianity(something she's gone on about before, mind you) is pretty creepy.

As I said, I do think there's some slight jest to her comments, but I also think she partly believes what she's saying, considering how often she says them, in varying contexts.

Really, I think there's a lot of hate in Coulter's words, which is a big turnoff for me. Having political opinions and expressing them is great, but hating an entire group of people simply because of their general political ideology? I'll never understand that. That, to me, seems a little...well, "whacko".

So... you didn't say she's a whacko, but now you're saying she's a wacko ?

Quote:

Animalman said:
Perhaps if she focused on individal issues, or even individual people, and attacked them, her views would be easier to digest. Instead, she presents her own interpretations of liberal justifications as the unwavering norm.

I don't see that her statements are any more sweeping than the "evil Repubicans" and "evil Bush neo-cons" or "American imperialists" rhetoric that she is criticizing.
And as I myself have said in numerous posts, while the liberal tactics I criticize are not those of ALL liberals, there is an overwhelming majority of liberals I speak to in person, and those I see writing columns or interviewed on television who are of the bitter foaming-at-the-mouth "Republicans are evil"/"Bush is an idiot" variety.

Quote:

Animalman said:

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
In the above quoted comment, Coulter is basically saying that if we (the U.S.) really were the opressive evil imperialists that so many liberals, muslims and other enemies consistently allege, and we really fulfilled their worst fears and toppled their Islamic governments, they would be exposed to the benevolent traditions of American "evil Christian" culture, and find it a hundred times more tolerable than the oppressive dictators and Islamic repression that these nations already have.

I guess we all read what we want into comments like thse. I just don't see that, at least, not in that specific comment. Perhaps if she had expanded the thought, it wouldn't be as open to interpretation, or as potentially offensive.

To me, what Coulter said, as I described in deconstructing it, is visible to anyone familiar with the political facts regarding islamic culture, and with U.S. history and military action over the last 100 years.

Quote:

Animalman said:

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
And Coulter points this out beautifully with her playful irreverence toward these flawed liberal and islamic views.

Clearly, in this case, your idea of beauty and playfulness differs greatly from my own.

And certainly, yours differs from mine.

Quote:

Animalman said:

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I fail to see what is crazy or whacko in her comments, which are the conservative equivalent of the political commentary liberals churn out weekly, from Al Franken to any number of evening talk shows to Doonesbury to Saturday Night Live.

.
I don't recall ever seeing Franken or Saturday Night Live(perhaps I'm misinterpreting you, but are you suggesting that SNL is a heavily liberal program?) saying something as equally drastic as what Coulter says. I'd say Franken's conservative counterpart is probably someone like Ben Stein, or Dennis Miller, both of whom I like, as well.
.
Franken actually has a background in comedy and displays a wide variety of humor in his writing, including self-deprication. That's something I've never seen Coulter exhibit, which is a big reason why I find her far less endearing as a personality.

Again, what you consider insightful and/or funny is largely diametrically opposed to what I find insightful and funny.

Again, what one considers insightful or funny is largely determined by their political perspective, be it conservative or liberal.

I think you make a fair comparison of Al Franken to Dennis Miller.
But I feel similarly about comparison of Al Franken and Ann Coulter.

Miller, while clearly a passionate conservative, strives more for comedy than political rhetoric.
Franken, on the other hand, is very angry, and has said in interviews that he pursued writing books and political commentary to angrily lash back at what he sees as a conservative threat.
So making that case, I again say I see more similarity between Franken and Coulter, than between Franken and Miller. Although they are all, ultimately, part of that blend we call infotainment. Both (Franken and Coulter) are more focused on political rhetoric than comedy.

And to directly answer your question about Saturday Night Live's political bias: Al Franken's present political actions, following his 25-plus-year stint as a driving force on SNL, I think speaks volumes about the program's political bias.
Although I don't think it was always so, I think it has become more so in recent years as Franken has become less funny and more politically angry while he was with SNL, and the people he left behind at SNL follow in that tradition.

SNL parodies liberals too, but they seem to save the hardest punches for the Republicans.

[ I was interrupted earlier, and so edited and concluded my earlier comments. ]

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
For all the liberal attempts to marginalize Coulter as a some kind of whacko, I think she very skillfully uses parody and clever hyperbole to point out the flaws in liberal thought, and in other biased anti-American criticism of the United States.

I can't recall in this forum ever having said word one about Coulter.

If you think it's clever, funny, etc., fine. I do not. Life goes on. I was not trying to characterize or marginalize or anything-ize Coulter. I just didn't find her remarks funny, that's all.

Donkey ears are funny.

Ann Coulter <> Donkey ears.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Miller, while clearly a passionate conservative, strives more for commedy than political rhetoric.
Franken, on the other hand, is very angry, and has said in interviews that he pursued writing books and political commentary to angrily lash back at what he sees as a conservative threat.

So making that case, I again say I see more similarity between Franken and Coulter, than between Franken and Miller. Although they are all, ultimately, part of that blend we call infotainment. Both are more focused on political rhetoric than comedy.

I don't know. I've read several of Franken's books, and usually politics take a backseat to the humor(though I do think he would like to be taken somewhat seriously as a political commentator).

When he does talk politics, he tends to either reflect on his experiences as a youth, or attack specific individuals, like Rush Limbaugh or George Bush, and parody them.

At the same time, I also tried reading one of Coulter's books, "how to talk to a liberal(if you must)", and it seemed like every sentance began with "liberals believe" or "liberals think" or "liberals want", on and on and on(I found this to also be the case with many of Sean Hannity's books).

Quote:

SNL parodies liberals too, but they seem to save the hardest punches for the Republicans.

Wow, I really don't see it that way. SNL bashes everyone. Janet Reno(there should be no argument that Will Ferrell's Reno was the harshest and most hilarious of any political impersonation), Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, they've been hit just as hard as the Bushes have.

Hell, Darrell Hammond's Clinton still shows up!

Also, Rudy Giuliani and John Mccain made more appearances on the show than any other politician by far.

I don't know what the political leanings of the SNL writers are or have been, but I definitely don't think there's any obvious political bend to the show.

Quote:

Animalman said:
Wow, I really don't see it that way. SNL bashes everyone. Janet Reno(there should be no argument that Will Ferrell's Reno was the harshest and most hilarious of any political impersonation)

Ferrell's Reno was hilarious. The one where Reno shows up while he's doing the impersonation is classic.

Oh, and I don't see SNL as slanted, either. They bash whoever's in the limelight (see also: vulnerable) at the time.

SNL used to be so much better and funnier, especially when it comes to political humor.

Back in 1996, during the Clinton-Dole campaign, Dole did a self-parody and ended up saying the "Live From New York" bit (he wasn't the host of the show, however.)

I've heard that George Bush Sr. was such a huge fan of Dana Carvey's impression of him that it earned Carvey a visit or two to the White House.

When Al Gore was on, and they parodied the VP hunt, they had him kiss the guy playing Lieberman.

SNL's really gone down hill these past couple years. Actually, political humor in general has gone downhill.

The comparisons to Franken & others are unfair. They don't just mindlessly blast conservatives but target specific events or people. As for being clever, Coulter could be replaced with a parrot at this point. In general she just lowers the bar on any type of discussion.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I don't see "Janet Reno Dance Party" as a brutal portrayal of Janet Reno. Otherwise, if it were that brutal, when Janet Reno took a swipe at running for Florida governor, she never would have had a fund-raiser publicity thing and called it "Janet Reno Dance Party" as it was on Saturday Night Live.

I wasn't referring to the Dance Party as much as I was referring to how the character acts and talks.

It's not like they get Tracy Morgan to play Condoleeza Rice, or a woman to play Colin Powell.

Quote:

Similarly, I've seen some very funny parodies of Bill Clinton, where he was overweight in a jogging suit at McDonald's, meeting people, appearing to campaign, but only was friendly to people so he could mooch their food.

Quote:

But in the cases of G.W.Bush and Quayle, they portray them as idiots who couldn't find their own asshole in the dark. And I find attacks on their competency based on nothing in particular to be a bit mean and less funny. Although much of it is, admittedly, quite funny.

The stereotyptical portrayal of G.W being a moron can get boring at times, since it's really the only aspect of his personality satirical shows seem to play on, but that's not much different from the hilarious Phil Hartman skits as a slobby, drunken Ted Kennedy.

I agree that sometimes they lack tact and just seem mean.

Quote:

While I have seen Giuliani and McCain appear as guests on Saturday Night Live, I don't know that they've been on that much. I've seen them each once on the program, perhaps they've been on more than that. But to my knowledge, no more so than Clinton, Gore and other prominent Democrats.

McCain must have friends at NBC or something, because he's also a semi-regular on the Conan O'Brien show(the "John McCain secrets" bits leave me on the floor every time). One of the reasons I really like him is because he seems to have such a great sense of humor, and has no problem being made fun of or even making fun of himself.

Quote:

SNL had a great "Presidential Bash" special a few nights before the election that was hilarious. Collecting parodies from SNL's last 30-years of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Perot, Clinton, Bush Sr, G.W. Bush and Kerry, that was hilarious.

Interesting, I should try and track that down. SNL has, admittedly, severely gone downhill in recent years. It's always refreshing to see some of the older shows, which are far more high quality, in my opinion.

Quote:

Animalman said:
Wow, I really don't see it that way. SNL bashes everyone.

Pay more attention to Tina Fey.

Tina Fey is very liberal. She is also a head writer so her views are put into some of the sketches.

Wasn't the whole Janet Reno thing making fun of the way she looked and dressed?

FUCK YEAH!

Strap-On Veterans for Truth

An organization dedicating to exposing the truth about the former drag queen now known as Ann Coulter

Quote:

We are a coalition of former friends and co-workers of Ann Coulter who are upset by her vicious anti-gay, anti-muslim, anti-feminist rhetoric and feel the truth should be told. Our organization, Strap-On Veterans For Truth, is dedicated to exposing the true past of America’s number one hatemonger.

Ann Coulter is actually a former drag queen from Key West named Pudenda Shenanigans. Ms. Shenanigans was famous for her renditions of “Dude Looks Like a Lady” “I will Survive” and “You Shook Me All Night Long” as well as an extensive Barbra Streisand repertoire. We who used to work with her are concerned for her as well as upset by the vile hatred she has spewed towards her former friends in the gay community. We feel that by bringing the truth to light perhaps Ann will come to grips with her past and change her wicked ways.

As Pudenda Shenanigans, she was well known on the drag circuit in Key West. Whether she actually had a full sex change or not is a matter of debate, although her adam’s apple is still visible in photos, under the appropriate light. We who laughed, cried, worked and danced with her feel her story should be told. We are not out to punish her, but feel it’s time she owned up to what she really is.

http://www.straponvets.com/

Does anybody here acctually know what the difference between a larynx and an adams-apple is?

The Adam's Apple is part of the larynx.

I agree with Steve T, Jim Jackson and Animalman.

Quote:

theory9 said:
The Adam's Apple is part of the larynx.

Right just like the nose is a part of the face.... it's an important difference.

Even though it is about Ann Coulter, I kinda like this thread. One of the few civil conversations DaveTWB and I ever had on the Deep Thoughts forum.

SNL really sucks these days.

Yahoo! News

U.S.

Hecklers Cause Coulter to Cut UConn Speech
Wed Dec 7,11:14 PM ET

By SHELLEY K. WONG, Associated Press Writer

Quote:

Wednesday said:
"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Knudsen, head of Students Against Hate.

Translation:

"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, as long as it more or less agrees with what I believe," said Knudsen.

Yes.

These protestors would prefer someone like Howard Dean as a guest speaker at their school.

Because we all know that Howard Dean would never resort to hate speech, making blanket statements about how all Republicans are evil, and that he hates all Republicans.

And we all know that Howard Dean would never make blanket stereotypes of all residents of the Deep South, as all driving pickup trucks, and all having gunracks in their back truck windows.

Except that we all know Dean said both these things in the last year.

Or Jesse Jackson saying: "I used to spit in the soup of white people."
Or more recently, Jackson's describing New York City as "hymietown."

Oh yes, the Democrats are so superior in their rhetoric. They never resort to stereotypes do they?

How about inviting Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, so he can repeat his remarks about our troops in Iraq, which he compared to "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags, and the Cambodian Pol Pot regime".
Remarks which Durbin later retracted, after a firestorm of criticism regarding the distortion of comparing our soldiers to those who have committed genocide of millions.

At least in the case of Ann Coulter, she makes her remarks with clear humor and deliberate hyperbole, to make a larger point.

I loved a remark Coulter made in the early months of the Iraq War that "donations to Udei and Qusei Hussein Memorial Fund can be made directly to the Howard Dean campaign", or something to that effect.
I mean anyone who reads that knows she doesn't mean it literally, but simply that Howard Dean's rhetoric is inadvertantly serving the cause of Saddam Hussein.

I love the way Coulter makes a point about the absurdity of Democrat actions, with these hyperbolic statements of what Democrat partisan statements truly represent (in this case, spreading the propaganda and the cause of Al Qaida, in opposition to the United States).

And I hasten to add, that in contrast to Coulter, the remarks of Dean, Jackson and Durbin I mentioned above were made in complete seriousness.

I guarantee these U. Conn. college protestors would not criticize these same remarks from Democrat pundits and leaders.
Quite the contrary, they would be at stage front, cheering them on.

Were any of those people invited to speak at UConn?

Quote:

Wednesday said:
Were any of those people invited to speak at UConn?

That's not the point, is it?

The point is that these protestors shouted down Ann Coulter, so that she didn't even have a chance to make a respectful presentation to the audience.

I think that speaks to the lack of civility of the protestors, that in the land of the free, she wasn't even able to speak her opinion. An opinion for which a few hundred people paid money to hear her speak.
So much for democracy, free speech, and the exchange of ideas.

If they were smart, they would have held their visible protest, but been civil enough to let her give her lecture. Then they might have been given a few rhetorical nuggets that they could say "There, see, she made her hateful remarks on our campus."

But all they did was, rather undemocratically, smother her ability to respectfully voice a perspective they disagree with.

They prove that they are the ones who are uncivil and un-American, that they are the ones who are intolerant, and not Ann Coulter.

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:

So much for democracy, free speech, and the exchange of ideas.

Hey, that's George Bush's mantra!

Quote:

Wednesday said:
Were any of those people invited to speak at UConn?

Howard Dean spoke at UConn last year.

Uconn lists Jackson’s National Rainbow/PUSH Coalition as one of its National Diversity Resources.

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:
Quote:

Wednesday said:
Were any of those people invited to speak at UConn?

That's not the point, is it?

Well, yeah, it is.

I posted the article, G-man replied, then you replied:

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:

These protestors would prefer someone like Howard Dean as a guest speaker at their school...

Or Jesse Jackson saying: "I used to spit in the soup of white people."
Or more recently, Jackson's describing New York City as "hymietown."

Oh yes, the Democrats are so superior in their rhetoric. They never resort to stereotypes do they?

How about inviting Democrat Senator Dick Durbin, so he can repeat his remarks about our troops in Iraq, which he compared to "Nazi storm troopers, Soviet Gulags, and the Cambodian Pol Pot regime".
Remarks which Durbin later retracted, after a firestorm of criticism regarding the distortion of comparing our soldiers to those who have committed genocide of millions.

And then:

Quote:

I guarantee these U. Conn. college protestors would not criticize these same remarks from Democrat pundits and leaders.
Quite the contrary, they would be at stage front, cheering them on...

Granted, that was only part of your post, but since the rest was your opinion of Coulter herself, I skipped it.

I asked if they had ever invited those people to UConn because you seemed pretty sure that they would. I wanted to know what you were basing that on.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Wednesday said:
Were any of those people invited to speak at UConn?

Howard Dean spoke at UConn last year.

Uconn lists Jackson’s National Rainbow/PUSH Coalition as one of its National Diversity Resources.

That's what I wanted to know.

We have succeeded in showing that there are people on both sides who make careers of hate and unPC remarks. Of course, this fact shouldn't be shocking or taken as indicative of either side being EVIL.

Looks like she got what she deserved. Actually they should have talked to her with baseball bats

(Coulter fans will notice I'm using her brand of humor)

But considering that you don't have her, or our, humor, chances are you're being serious. In which case, you're a disgusting individual.

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:

And I think that emphasises the double-standard of these U. Conn. liberal protestors quite nicely.

They have no objection to Dean or Jackson.

But simultaneously not only object to, but snuff out Ann Coulter's ability to voice her opinion AT ALL !

Oh, that's definitely mostly true. There was a clear double standard applied here. She was able to get out most of her speech, according to the article, so I don't know about them snuffing out her ability to voice her opinion AT ALL!!! but these protesters are full of shit. They just don't like the fact that the hate is being steered in their direction.

Listen, I will agree she should have been permitted to present her talk, speech, whatever.

But it amazes me that those who represent THE IDEOLOGY THAT'S CURRENTLY IN POWER whine when others shout them down. Jesus Christ, DtWB, your side won the election. You got your man for another 4 years.

So what if Ann The Bitch gets shouted down? Her free speech hasn't been violated, since it was not The Government who shouted her down.

Maybe it's time for another Revolution...

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
Listen, I will agree she should have been permitted to present her talk, speech, whatever.

But it amazes me that those who represent THE IDEOLOGY THAT'S CURRENTLY IN POWER whine when others shout them down. Jesus Christ, DtWB, your side won the election. You got your man for another 4 years.

Because it doesn't really matter that Bush/Republicans are in power.

Because Democrats show the same (1) partisan lack of fairness, and (2) contempt and utter lack of civility toward conservatives/Republicans, no matter which party is in power.

And I don't think it's "whining" to point out that there is a clear double-standard.

Also, as I've made clear across any number of topics, while I'm a Republican and G.W. Bush is a Republican, it's a huge assumption on your part that he's my "man".

I've made it clear in my prior posts that it was a choice for the lesser of two evils, and that if the Democrats offered a viable alternative such as Joseph Lieberman or Sam Nunn or some other Democrat who offered more credibility on defense, I would have voted for him.

But they didn't.

I've made it clear in prior posts that I would have preferred McCain as the nominee in 2000, and I voted for Bush in 2004 because Jane Fonda... excuse me... John Kerry was so unthinkable leading a war on terror.

I've made it clear many times where I separate myself from Bush.

And some things I haven't said on the boards yet:

Finally, I get tired of these discussions where, rather than discussing my perspective of the issue, I have to dig myself out of a hole of false assumptions of what you and others assume to be what I believe or support.

Case in point.
Again.

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:

So what if Ann The Bitch gets shouted down? Her free speech hasn't been violated, since it was not The Government who shouted her down.

Maybe it's time for another Revolution...

Short of speech that incites violence or a riot, Ann Coulter has the right to be heard.
Particularly in a place where hundreds of people have paid money to see her speak. As opposed to the extremely vocal and uncivil minority of 100 or so there who suppressed her constitutional right.

Supression of free speech is still supression of free speech, whether suppression by government, or suppression by private groups.
If this had been a gay or liberal speaker instead of Ann Coulter, there's be an outcry for police protection of their free speech rights at the next meeting.

Quote:

Wednesday said:
Quote:

Wonder Boy said:

And I think that emphasises the double-standard of these U. Conn. liberal protestors quite nicely.

They have no objection to Dean or Jackson.

But simultaneously not only object to, but snuff out Ann Coulter's ability to voice her opinion AT ALL !

Oh, that's definitely mostly true. There was a clear double standard applied here. She was able to get out most of her speech, according to the article, so I don't know about them snuffing out her ability to voice her opinion AT ALL!!! but these protesters are full of shit. They just don't like the fact that the hate is being steered in their direction.

I appreciate the correction, Wednesday, that Ann Coulter was able to speak a bit before she was interrupted.

Although it certainly was the intention of the protesters to prevent her being heard, to whatever degree they could. But you are correct, despite the intentions of her opposition, it wasn't a total shutout.

All I know is that Ann is a disgrace to transgender people everywhere! Your friends back on Key West still remember you, Ann! They held your hand through the hard times like when you cried because your vaginal dialater hurt. Now all we want to know, Reggie, is how many MIPS do you get out of those silicon implants!?

Bitch.

Quote:

Pariah said:
But considering that you don't have her, or our, humor, chances are you're being serious. In which case, you're a disgusting individual.

Well I think my posting history here at Robs would indicate that I wasn't serious. At least it gave you a chance to call me a "disgusting individual"

DTWB:

Politicians are all spawned from the same social DNA; your arguments lack focus and factual basis if you continue to claim that only one political party has a monopoly on bad habits. Republicans mess up, Democrats mess up--that's how it is.

Additionally, it appears as if you're falling into the trap of protecting people rather than rights. Does Coulter have the right to speak her mind? Absolutely. But the right to speak one's mind should be universal, rather than being selective in your application of rights. If you preserve a right and hold it in high regard, you don't have to worry about standing up for the person.

Quote:

theory9 said:
DTWB:

Politicians are all spawned from the same social DNA; your arguments lack focus and factual basis if you continue to claim that only one political party has a monopoly on bad habits. Republicans mess up, Democrats mess up--that's how it is.

Additionally, it appears as if you're falling into the trap of protecting people rather than rights. Does Coulter have the right to speak her mind? Absolutely. But the right to speak one's mind should be universal, rather than being selective in your application of rights. If you preserve a right and hold it in high regard, you don't have to worry about standing up for the person.

I certainly concede that, theory9. That both Democrats and Republicans mess up, and both should be held accountable.

I find it odd that you say that immediately after I posted a laundry list of Bush's mistakes.

And if you look through my last 100 posts, or even back over the last 3 or 4 years of my RKMB posts, you'll see that while a majority of the time I've defended Bush, I've been critical of him as well.
Constructively critical of Bush, but critical nonetheless.

I only say that: more often for me, the Republican stance rings truer, as the more logical common sense approach.

As in the Afghan and Iraq wars, for example.

Clinton talked about Afghanistan being a haven for terrorists, and that Saddam was a threat to the U.S. and the Arab world.

But G.W. Bush did more than sabre-rattle, he did what needed to be done in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
And as I just said, my only problem with that decision is that Bush tried / is trying to do it with a light force, instead of the 200,000 -300,000 troops the Pentagon said were needed to do the job right.
And as a result, I fault Bush and Rumsfeld for doing the job more slowly / more destructively / less efficently than it could be done.
But even so, (despite liberal partisan remarks and media coverage) Iraq is slowly, inexorably becoming more independent and militarily ready every day.

But meanwhile, the Democrats are pushing for faster troop withdrawals, and elimination of U.S. forces before the Iraqis are ready.
Which just further convinces me that whatever problems I see with Bush's conducting of the war, the Democrats are even worse !

I fail to see how this is vague or one-sided of me to say, as you allege.

If I didn't say it before, I'll say it clearly now: both Democrats and Republicans have made mistakes.

But I think I've said it repeatedly, loud and clear already, in many of my prior posts.

As much as I loathe Coulter's hatemongering, Wonder Boy is right that she shouldn't have been shouted down. It's sad that an extremist like her had an audience for her Clinton/liberals bashing but they had a right to hear her.

My comment about selectivity was based on this:

Quote:

Because it doesn't really matter that Bush/Republicans are in power.
Because Democrats show the same (1) partisan lack of fairness, and (2) contempt and utter lack of civility toward conservatives/Republicans, no matter which party is in power. And I don't think it's "whining" to point out that there is a clear double-standard.

If both sides both do the same things, how can a double-standard exist?

My point about one-sidedness was this: if you assert membership before ideas, you're often forced to accept (or be associated with) a wide-ranging set of notions that may not apply to you. That you agree with the President on the war is only part of the issue--whether or not we can achieve lasting success is the larger question. Because of religious and cultural divides, many of the gains that the US has realized in Iraq will probably not last too long past our eventual withdrawl from the country.

Now stating the above does not mean you haven't considered it, but it doesn't appear as if US leadership has given it long-term thought. Democrats have raised these concerns, only to be drown in the cries of being soft on terrorism. My concern, more generally, is simply that we've entered these countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) without realistically achievable objectives, and in the meantime have exposed ourselves to the enemy in more subtle ways.

Quote:

theory9 said:
My comment about selectivity was based on this:

Quote:

Because it doesn't really matter that Bush/Republicans are in power.
Because Democrats show the same (1) partisan lack of fairness, and (2) contempt and utter lack of civility toward conservatives/Republicans, no matter which party is in power. And I don't think it's "whining" to point out that there is a clear double-standard.

If both sides both do the same things, how can a double-standard exist?

My point about one-sidedness was this: if you assert membership before ideas, you're often forced to accept (or be associated with) a wide-ranging set of notions that may not apply to you.

I pointed out that both the republican and democrat parties, to some degree use the same tactics, yes.

The double-standard is in how the news media overwhelmingly gives a one-sided positive spin to the Democrat perspective at every turn.

Just because I express a leaning toward one side doesn't mean I don't weigh the validity of both perspectives.

Again, I made that abundantly clear in my constructive criticism of Bush's shortcomings above.
But you attempt to dismiss me as partisan, despite my criticism of Bush, both above, and in my posts over the last four years or so.

Which is ironic, considering your own liberal leanings that you are reluctant to own up to, even as you accuse me of partisanship.

Quote:

theory9 said:

That you agree with the President on the war is only part of the issue--whether or not we can achieve lasting success is the larger question.
Because of religious and cultural divides, many of the gains that the US has realized in Iraq will probably not last too long past our eventual withdrawl from the country.

Your opinion, which you are entitled to.
But you state it as if it were fact. Similar things were said about Germany and Japan after World War II.

Quote:

theory9 said:
Now stating the above does not mean you haven't considered it, but it doesn't appear as if US leadership has given it long-term thought.
Democrats have raised these concerns, only to be drown in the cries of being soft on terrorism. My concern, more generally, is simply that we've entered these countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) without realistically achievable objectives, and in the meantime have exposed ourselves to the enemy in more subtle ways.

Again, your opinion, stated as fact.
You criticize my partisanship, then lobby an argument that the Democrats have better solutions, but are being smeared as un-American and thus not listened to, despite their oh-so-superior solutions. (I see their criticism as just opportunistic kicking of the president whenever he's down, without offering any real solutions of their own. Which hurts the morale of our troops, and hurts public perception through sheer repetition of wishful thinkers in the news media, despite a lack of substantiation for their negative projections. )

All indications I've seen are that our troops on the ground are adapting and improving, as is the Bush administration's strategy.
And that despite the losses, full democracy in Iraq with an independent Iraqi security force is inevitable, that their economy is improving in Iraq, and that the insurrection is increasingly less able to go on.

I agree that there have been some mistakes, as there are in every war.
That is one of my criticisms above, that Bush didn't go into Iraq with a larger force, as the joint Chiefs said was necessary to do the job right.

It is hardly a factual inevitability that gains in Iraq are "not likely to last that long". These are people who want peace and economic opportunity, for themselves and their children.

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
So what if Ann The Bitch gets shouted down? Her free speech hasn't been violated, since it was not The Government who shouted her down.

So, by that logic, Matthew Shepherd's rights weren't violated because it wasn't the government that killed him?

Now you've gone and crossed the Thin Rainbow Line™, G-Man...

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
So what if Ann The Bitch gets shouted down? Her free speech hasn't been violated, since it was not The Government who shouted her down.

So, by that logic, Matthew Shepherd's rights weren't violated because it wasn't the government that killed him?

Technically that's true. I don't like the idea of classifying some crimes as "hate crimes" since all crimes are wrong. If someone is beaten then the same penalty should be in place regardless of motive.
So his rights weren't violated, but a crime was committed against him.

Lets not forget Dude that keeping wildlife, um... an amphibious rodent, for... um, ya know domestic... within the city... that ain't legal either.

Quote:

Jim Jackson said:
So what if Ann The Bitch gets shouted down? Her free speech hasn't been violated, since it was not The Government who shouted her down.

Quote:

the G-man said:
So, by that logic, Matthew Shepherd's rights weren't violated because it wasn't the government that killed him?

Quote:

r3x29yz4a said:
Technically that's true. I don't like the idea of classifying some crimes as "hate crimes" since all crimes are wrong. If someone is beaten then the same penalty should be in place regardless of motive.

For the record, I concur.

Quote:

So his rights weren't violated, but a crime was committed

And, in the case of Coulter, I would argue that a crime, albeit a minor one. was also committed. If nothing else, "disorderly conduct" or, perhaps, "harassment."

Furthermore, if the protesters had planned to go to the event and illegally disrupt same, an argument could be made that they engaged in a conspiracy.

DTWB:

Your indictment of the media as overwhelmingly liberal depends on where you stand: there are many who would say the media is too conservative. If you do weigh both sides, that's a good thing, but your posts bear no evidence of that.

The following is in bold so you won't miss it: If you wish to say that I have liberal leanings, so be it. But the world is too complex to espouse a simple-minded, two-party view of the world. I'm a thinker, NOT A POLITICAN, and people who spend significant amounts of time thinking in a simplistic, two-dimensional fashion can do it without me. I'm interested in solving problems rather than trying to take credit for things I haven't done and blaming others for my mistakes (a brief summation of 20th American politics).

I'll restate the previous sentence for anyone "unclear" as to what I mean: if you think that the world operates on republican/democrat fuel and refuse to see outside the small box you've (the editorial you) constructed for yourself, go for it. But to think that the rest of the world subscribes to your hysterical notions is silly. The world is bigger than red/blue states, and solutions occur within societies when people search for answers to problems and stop playing the blame game. I am not on the sidelines, I'm right here acknowledging the world around me, rather than quoting PBS websites and decrying the decline of overall human freedoms. So say what you will about liberal leanings: I don't live in your box and never will.

Other points:

The last quote in your post doesn't show me asserting a Democratic solution, because I never said it. Not once did I say (or imply) that the Democrats held a better solution Again, you're limiting thought on the subject by not looking for answers and instead focusing on the political blame-game.

Whether one agrees with the war or not, the fact is that people are dying; both Democrats and Republicans can agree on that. My concern was (and is, despite your slanderous comments to the contrary) that the objectives of the troops be realistic and attainable. Your flagwaving for the Republicans changes none of that.

Ignoring the intense racial divisions within Iraq and the structure of Islam in general are two oversights that may cost the US (again, not Republican or Democrat) dearly in the future. No substantial democracy has ever existed in the Middle East, most prominently due to the anti-democratic leanings of the Koran. The Baath party was designed to take advantage of the country's racial divides, and the US is having a fair amount of difficulty crossing these divides. Again, this is not to say that the occupation will not be successful, only that success will be difficult, hard fought and not necessarily permanent.

Theo

P.S. I never asserted that the Democrat's approach was better.