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. ]