|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
nonononono... that's not what you said. You said that I was "using a partisan political columnist to define who is Godless for me" Supporting a thesis (which I do in part, but not entirely as you define the thesis) is a far cry from saying that my opinion is shaped by the person putting forth the thesis. I define Godlessness as I define it irrespecive of how Anne Coulter defines it.
Which part of Coulter's idea of "Godless" do you agree with then?
I would define those who don;t believe in God or decisions made w/out the consideration of God to be "Godless". Beyond that I'm not going to reprint teh entire book and highlight those portions I agree with... Why don;t you raise a specific issue and I'll tell you my thoughts...... Or I could simply post the entire book and if you fail to respond to the entire thing then I guess i could say you got pwnt.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
nonononono... that's not what you said. You said that I was "using a partisan political columnist to define who is Godless for me" Supporting a thesis (which I do in part, but not entirely as you define the thesis) is a far cry from saying that my opinion is shaped by the person putting forth the thesis. I define Godlessness as I define it irrespecive of how Anne Coulter defines it.
Which part of Coulter's idea of "Godless" do you agree with then?
I would define those who don;t believe in God or decisions made w/out the consideration of God to be "Godless". Beyond that I'm not going to reprint teh entire book and highlight those portions I agree with... Why don;t you raise a specific issue and I'll tell you my thoughts...... Or I could simply post the entire book and if you fail to respond to the entire thing then I guess i could say you got pwnt.
Well I think the obvious one would be Coulter's arguement defines who "Godless" is with a partisan line. From what I read of Ch1, she's talking in broad terms about liberals. Not some or many but all liberals being "Godless". Do you agree with that?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Do I accept the premise that 100% of liberals are godless? No. I do think Coulter uses broad terms, but I think her arguments definately describe a segment of the left. Keep reading and we can keep discussing.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
Actually, I think one of the points she's making is that even if the liberals she talks about do believe in God, that doesn't make their actions as liberals very illustrative of that fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
nonononono... that's not what you said. You said that I was "using a partisan political columnist to define who is Godless for me" Supporting a thesis (which I do in part, but not entirely as you define the thesis) is a far cry from saying that my opinion is shaped by the person putting forth the thesis. I define Godlessness as I define it irrespecive of how Anne Coulter defines it.
Which part of Coulter's idea of "Godless" do you agree with then?
I would define those who don;t believe in God or decisions made w/out the consideration of God to be "Godless".
I'd expand on WBAM's definition of "godless" liberals to be liberals who ignore that this country, from its very beginning, is deeply founded on Biblical/Christian principles (as made clear in the personal writings of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the other framers of the Declaration and Constitution, and in the wording of these two documents themselves) .
And further: not being Christians themselves, these godless liberals try to wipe the essential Christian foundations from our schools and government, and even to erase them from our history, through distorted revisionism.
Quote:
M E M said:
Well I think the obvious one would be Coulter's arguement defines who "Godless" is with a partisan line. From what I read of Ch1, she's talking in broad terms about liberals. Not some or many but all liberals being "Godless". Do you agree with that?
I think liberals as a whole have a deep contempt for Christianity. There are Democrats who are Catholic or Protestant, but I think liberal leadership is content to use these people and cultivate their votes.
But the liberal party's core agenda is opposite what these Catholics and Protestants who vote for them value.
They are basically just fodder to be used and cast aside, by the secularist liberal core of their party. Much like the blacks and Jews who vote so loyally for the Democrats, but get little if anything in return for it, beyond empty rhetoric that they're being victimized by alleged racism of the Republicans.
Fearmongering that keeps them voting loyally for Democrats.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
I'd expand on WBAM's definition of "godless" liberals to be liberals who ignore that this country, from its very beginning, is deeply founded on Biblical/Christian principles (as made clear in the personal writings of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the other framers of the Declaration and Constitution, and in the wording of these two documents themselves) .
Jefferson wasn't a Christian in the traditional sense. He believed in stripping away most of the dogma and just follow Jesus' words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Also, they believed strongly in the separation of church and state due to the problems that arose in england.
Quote:
And further: not being Christians themselves, these godless liberals try to wipe the essential Christian foundations from our schools and government, and even to erase them from our history, through distorted revisionism.
distorted revisionism? i'm not even sure what you're blathering on about here.
The fact is government is supposed to be separate from religion. A government official can go to church and pray as he likes but he can't put that religion into laws or any official actions.
Quote:
I think liberals as a whole have a deep contempt for Christianity. There are Democrats who are Catholic or Protestant, but I think liberal leadership is content to use these people and cultivate their votes.
But the liberal party's core agenda is opposite what these Catholics and Protestants who vote for them value.
Catholics and Protestants hate worker's rights and government responsibility? They hate the economy of Clinton, the environment that Gore seeks to protect.
Quote:
They are basically just fodder to be used and cast aside, by the secularist liberal core of their party. Much like the black and Jews who vote so loyally for the Democrats, but get little if anything in return for it, beyond empty rhetoric that they're being victimized by alleged racism of the Republicans.
wow. You're fucking nuts, aren't you? I mean there's crazy, then there's you.
Quote:
Fearmongering that keeps them voting loyally for Democrats.
Fearmongering like Bush using 9/11 to justify every little thing. Or fearmongering like using 9/11 and Terror Alerts during election cycles like Bush did in 2004?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
...
I'm sure you noticed but could care less that I cut the quotes to one... that was the quote we had been discussing. If you would like to discuss the other quotes we can. But I had responded to a specific quote. r3x had pulled out an absent implication from that response to that specific quote and in diong so posted several other quotes that had only in common that they were about women.
...
I thought the other quotes showed that Coulter has a pattern of saying some wonky things about women. It's just hard to know when a crazy fanatic is joking or trying to make some "larger" point. I thought most of Ray's Coulter quotes illustrated that pretty well.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Do I accept the premise that 100% of liberals are godless? No. I do think Coulter uses broad terms, but I think her arguments definately describe a segment of the left. Keep reading and we can keep discussing.
I just honestly couldn't finish the bit I could read for free. I would let you pick out & assist in shoving the fence posts in my eyes before I gave Coulter any money. 
I'll agree that Coulter describes a segment of the left but the same thing could be done with a segment of the right. Applying it broadly like Coulter does just strikes me as a bit fanatical & dishonest.
BTW glad you don't believe all liberals are godless. There are way to many truly good people I know that are very much liberal, it's a shame that Coulter for whatever reason doesn't see or recognize any of them.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
I'd expand on WBAM's definition of "godless" liberals to be liberals who ignore that this country, from its very beginning, is deeply founded on Biblical/Christian principles (as made clear in the personal writings of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the other framers of the Declaration and Constitution, and in the wording of these two documents themselves) .
Jefferson wasn't a Christian in the traditional sense. He believed in stripping away most of the dogma and just follow Jesus' words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Also, they believed strongly in the separation of church and state due to the problems that arose in england.
You make it sound like Jefferson wasn't a Christian, and as if he didn't strongly advocate Christian principles in the government he helped found.
But his deeply held Christian principles are clear in his writings. And the language he used in the Declaration of Independence, most of all, expresses an unmistakeable Christian framework on which American Democracy was based from its inception:
Quote:
from the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776:
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and deemed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...
There are at least three other references to God and the Bible in this founding document, that Jefferson himself wrote.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
W B said:
And further: not being Christians themselves, these godless liberals try to wipe the essential Christian foundations from our schools and government, and even to erase them from our history, through distorted revisionism.
distorted revisionism? i'm not even sure what you're blathering on about here.
The fact is government is supposed to be separate from religion. A government official can go to church and pray as he likes but he can't put that religion into laws or any official actions.
I already answered this misconception in an earlier post:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
The role of Christianity as an essential element in American Democracy is clear in the writings of the founding fathers.
The only fear of our founding fathers was that one form of Christianity would possibly rise to dominate how Christianity was practiced in the United States, as the Roman Catholic church had dominated Europe. They valued Christianity as an essential element in democracy, and in education, as is reflected in these quotes:
Quote:
Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God.
Gouverneur Morris, signer of the Constitution.
from The Life of Gouverneur Morris by Jared Sparks, vol 3, p 483
There was a belief by the founding fathers that previous attempts at democracy had inevitably failed because of the absence of Biblical principles in their foundation, as in the Greek and Roman empires.
Their belief was that without Christian teaching and principles, democracy could only descend into chaos and self-destruction. That only the Bible could make democracy in the United States turn out differently:
Quote:
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
James Madison
from The Federalist on the New Constitution, p 53
Quote:
Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a Democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams,
from Works, John Adams, vol 6, p 484, from a letter by Adams.
Quote:
All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, opression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible.
Noah Webster.
from The History of the United States, by Webster, p 309
Quote:
The only true basis of all government [is] the laws of God and nature. For government is an ordinance of Heaven, designed by the all-benevolent Creator.
Samuel Adams
from Writings, vol 1 p 269
Quote:
The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained... It is impossible to rightly govern without God and the Bible.
George Washington
from A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol 1, pp52-53
Quote:
The law dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.
Alexander Hamilton
from The Papers of Alexander Hamilton by Harold C. Syret, vol 1, p 87
Quote:
It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Patrick Henry
from God's Providence in American History, by Steve Dawson, p 1
The concept "separation of Church and State" is in no U.S. document of government. It is a creation in the 20th century, from a phrase Jefferson wrote in a personal letter.
It is NOT in any of Jefferson's books. But technically, it is in one of his writings. It is one phrase by Jefferson, not something he ever repeated or strenuously argued for.
But in any case, the role of Christianity in forming the principles of American democracy is clear.
And equally clear, the desire of its creators that Christian principles would continue to be an enduring part of that democracy, as long as American democracy continues to exist.
Again, I consider Christian concepts to be vastly different from those of Islam.
The ideas of a personal God (-vs- an unknowable God in Islam), of free will (-vs- a more fatalist mindset of Islam), and other ideas of human rights and dignity. That arguably have largely not reached the Islamic world even 200 years after the birth of democracy in the U.S. and Europe.
The founders of U.S. democracy openly advocated that Biblical/Christian principles have an essential role in American government and education.
Yet you assert that Christians are to check their beliefs at the door, and cannot advocate laws and education in accordance with their beliefs, teach in schools longheld practices that continue that Biblical tradition, or even give public mention to the tenets of their Christian faith, or that's "violation of the separation of Church and State".
Did you know that humanism has been found by a Supreme court ruling to be a religious belief?
That atheism has as well?
Yet these are freely advocated in our schools, court buildings and government.
As are abortion, gay rights, etc.
Can you imagine the Left's outrage, if Christians similarly demanded that these liberal belief systems (which I've argued in multiple prior topics are just as much faith-based belief systems as Christianity) be weeded out with a similar "wall of separation" from U.S. education and government buildings as is demanded for the Bible and Christianity ?
The current system is an unlevel discourse, where liberal ideas are openly advocated, and Judao-Christian ideas are unfairly excluded from the public dialogue in our schools, universities and other public arenas.
Liberals have, over the last 40 years set up a stacked deck, where their ideas are heard, and the ideas of those who disagree are largely marginalized from the public education system and courts.
In complete opposition to the essential role our nation's founders intended Christianity to play.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
W B said:
I think liberals as a whole have a deep contempt for Christianity. There are Democrats who are Catholic or Protestant, but I think liberal leadership is content to use these people and cultivate their votes.
But the liberal party's core agenda is opposite what these Catholics and Protestants who vote for them value.
Catholics and Protestants hate worker's rights and government responsibility? They hate the economy of Clinton, the environment that Gore seeks to protect.
Quote:
They are basically just fodder to be used and cast aside, by the secularist liberal core of their party. Much like the blacks and Jews who vote so loyally for the Democrats, but get little if anything in return for it, beyond empty rhetoric that they're being victimized by alleged racism of the Republicans.
wow. You're fucking nuts, aren't you? I mean there's crazy, then there's you.
Your words are ambiguous, but I can guess what you're falsely implying.
As is your tendency, you imply things you know to be false.
First off, I've defended Israel and criticized anti-Semitism many times in my posts on RKMB. You can't falsely paint me as an anti-semite.
I've also said in prior posts that while there are sub-groups, WITHIN the black community I disagree with politically ( as represented by charlatans and fearmongers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson), I'm not racist against blacks either.
I'm simply saying that as demographic groups, blacks and Jews are a loyal demographic base that the Democrats can rely on. And that is odd, since blacks and Jews are largely taken for granted by the Democrat leadership, and have little to show for their loyal support of Democrats at the polls.
Both Republican and Democrat pollsters would agree with me, as would the demographic breakdown of the last 20 years of Presidential elections.
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
W B said:
Fearmongering that keeps them voting loyally for Democrats.
Fearmongering like Bush using 9/11 to justify every little thing [?]
Or fearmongering like using 9/11 and Terror Alerts during election cycles like Bush did in 2004?
That is wild conspiracy theory on your part, to spitefully discredit a president you don't like, with absolutely nothing to back it up.
If I were to say that Clinton started wars in Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti and Somalia just to elevate popular support for himself, and distract from the many political scandals of his presidency, that would be the equivalent. But I don't believe that Clinton did this, or that there is evidence for this, beyond wild speculation.
And neither is there support for the absolute crap that you allege about Bush.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
blah blah religion
Wonder Girl, I said Jefferson wasn't Christian in the traditional sense, and he wasn't. Using your beliefs to reflect your work and laws is a far cry from trying to make your beliefs the official beliefs. Adding "under god" during the Cold War and putting the Ten Commandments in Government buildings is an attempt to make us a christian nation. So, yeah, believe what you want, but don't put god into the law. That's why it says by their creator (which is expressing a beliegf) but also says a "separation of church and state."
Quote:
Quote:
Fearmongering like Bush using 9/11 to justify every little thing [?]
Or fearmongering like using 9/11 and Terror Alerts during election cycles like Bush did in 2004?
That is wild conspiracy theory on your part, to spitefully discredit a president you don't like, with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Conspiracy theory? I didn't just type that he caused 9/11, just that he heavily uses it. And he did. He mentioned 9/11 a lot during the campaign. And anytime he's questioned it comes up as an excuse. And there were a lot of terror alerts leading up to the election (which all stopped soon afterwards).
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
blah blah religion
Wonder Girl, I said Jefferson wasn't Christian in the traditional sense, and he wasn't. Using your beliefs to reflect your work and laws is a far cry from trying to make your beliefs the official beliefs. Adding "under god" during the Cold War and putting the Ten Commandments in Government buildings is an attempt to make us a christian nation. So, yeah, believe what you want, but don't put god into the law. That's why it says by their creator (which is expressing a beliegf) but also says a "separation of church and state."
Your intolerant contempt for opposing views, your insults, and your lack of civility once again destroy your credibility. If you'd even bothered to make a credible case for your view in the first place.
Again, the "wall of separation" between Church and State is something Jefferson mentioned once in his entire life, in an obscure letter.
And the writings of virtually all the founding fathers (see what I quoted in my post above), all emphasize the essential role they intended for the Bible in government and education.
They believed that any attempt at democracy that DIDN'T have the Bible as its foundation was doomed to failure.
The only limit the founders had was to prevent dominance of one denomination over government and imposing one denomination as a state religion. (As Roman Catholicism dominated virtually all of Europe, and the Anglican Church dominated Britain, to the exclusion of other denominational faiths. This is what many fled to America for, so they could practice what they believed, instead of what was imposed on them in Europe.)
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Quote:
W B said:
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
Fearmongering like Bush using 9/11 to justify every little thing [?]
Or fearmongering like using 9/11 and Terror Alerts during election cycles like Bush did in 2004?
That is wild conspiracy theory on your part, to spitefully discredit a president you don't like, with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Conspiracy theory? I didn't just type that he caused 9/11, just that he heavily uses it. And he did. He mentioned 9/11 a lot during the campaign. And anytime he's questioned it comes up as an excuse. And there were a lot of terror alerts leading up to the election (which all stopped soon afterwards).
It's still highly speculative on your part.
Assholes on the Left (including the chairman of the DNC, and again, based on nothing but partisan venom and wild speculation) did accuse Bush of knowing in advance about 9-11, and being complicit in allowing it to happen.
I think Bush was being cautious and giving maximum warning to potential terror, in direct response to liberals saying he didn't give enough warning to the potential and threats before 9-11.
So it's the typical hysteria-driven "too much/not enough" vaccilating outcries of the Democrats no matter what is done. Regardless of what Bush does, you and other Democrats will complain about it, and accuse him of having the most contemptible motives possible, thus smearing Bush's international credibility, and ability to act.
Which is what Ann Coulter talked about in her book, Traitor, that liberals consistently pursue goals opposite what is best for the country.
And with malice and intolerance, smear anyone who doesn't ascribe to their liberal agenda.
- from Do Racists have lower IQ's...
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
oiy Wonder Boy. I think I've been down this road with you before so I'm just skipping out with just a "I very much dissagree with you". Your a good guy but geez.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Ann Coulter may face jail time for not voting in the right placeControversial political pundit Ann Coulter is being investigated for possibly voting in the wrong precinct last February.
That's a felony that carries up to five years behind bars.
The head election official in Palm Beach County says officials have sent coulter four letters since March, asking her to clarify her address.
But he says Coulter won't respond, so he plans to turn the case over to prosecutors.
Coulter's lawyer and publicist didn't return calls for comment.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Why would she vote in the wrong precinct? Bizzare.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 323
300+ posts
|
|
300+ posts
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 323 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Why would she vote in the wrong precinct? Bizzare.
Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. I also don't get why she's refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
Beware the advice of successful people. They do not seek company.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
dogbert said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Why would she vote in the wrong precinct? Bizzare.
Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. I also don't get why she's refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
The Fifth Amendment?
Ann's a lawyer. A good lawyer knows that sometimes even an innocent client should keep their mouth shut because "anything you say can and WILL be used against you..."
It seems odd to me that any lawyer, especially Ann, would knowingly commit a felony just to cast a single vote that doesn't direct affect her own candidacy. That makes me think (a) it was a mistake; (b) she feels, right or wrong, that she's the victim of a witch hunt and therefore won't cooperate.
Of course, as the case progresses, we could find out there's more to the story, exculpatory or inculpatory. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
The latest from Ann Coulter: Coulter Makes Gay Slur at Edwards, 4 Republicans Condemn her RemarkCoulter is a controversialist, and this kind of thing is just cheap publicity for her. I don't consider it intelligent or respectable, but it is good self-promotion. I also haven't heard anything about her voting problems recently.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Yeah, she's capable of far greater eloquence.
But the included video clip of her remark directed at John Edwards is pretty funny.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Yeah, she's capable of far greater eloquence.
But the included video clip of her remark directed at John Edwards is pretty funny.
Funny if you really hate democrats. Unlike Guiliani it sounds like she really pleased the conservative crowd.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
i ex[ected that out of a faggot!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Yeah, she's capable of far greater eloquence.
But the included video clip of her remark directed at John Edwards is pretty funny.
Funny if you really hate democrats. Unlike Guiliani it sounds like she really pleased the conservative crowd.
First, her remark was directed at John Edwards, not at Democrats.
Second, I don't hate Democrats, or share Coulter's sweeping contempt for all Democrats. I disagree with them frequently, but occasionally find their arguments a valid contribution to the national dialogue. (Despite the rabid contempt for conservatives, voiced by many --but not all-- Democrats)
Finally, I don't have to agree with the sentiment of a remark to find it funny. One of my favorite short stories is "Santa Claus vs. S.P.I.D.E.R." by Harlan Ellison, written in 1969, that mocks Ronald Reagan and many other conservative politicians of that era. It's a very clever parody, of conservatives, and also of the James Bond novels of Ian Fleming.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
|
|
Who will I break next? 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 46,308 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
I don't hate Democrats, or share Coulter's sweeping contempt for all Democrats.
bullshit
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Personally, I don't think Ann calling Edwards a faggot is funny. I know she was trying for a variation on the joke that he's a pretty boy without substance, coupled with a reference to Isiah Washington's troubles on the set of "Grey's Anatomy," but it just fell flat to me.
I think Ann peaked with her brilliant analysis of the muslim countries in the middle east, in which she said, quite eloquently, that we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
The New York Times: Ms. Coulter, asked for a reaction to the Republican criticism, said in an e-mail message: "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean." Now that gave me a chuckle.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Yeah, she's capable of far greater eloquence.
But the included video clip of her remark directed at John Edwards is pretty funny.
Funny if you really hate democrats. Unlike Guiliani it sounds like she really pleased the conservative crowd.
First, her remark was directed at John Edwards, not at Democrats.
The lead up to Edwards included Gore, Obama, & Clinton.
Quote:
Second, I don't hate Democrats, or share Coulter's sweeping contempt for all Democrats. I disagree with them frequently, but occasionally find their arguments a valid contribution to the national dialogue. (Despite the rabid contempt for conservatives, voiced by many --but not all-- Democrats)
OK maybe it's more complex than just hating democrats but would you have found her remarks funny if the names were switched with Republicans or just contempt? I could see the Al Gore stuff being nasty funny but the rest just seemed like pure venom.
Quote:
Finally, I don't have to agree with the sentiment of a remark to find it funny. One of my favorite short stories is "Santa Claus vs. S.P.I.D.E.R." by Harlan Ellison, written in 1969, that mocks Ronald Reagan and many other conservative politicians of that era. It's a very clever parody, of conservatives, and also of the James Bond novels of Ian Fleming.
I'm guessing Ellison did something a bit higher brow than "Ronald Reagan was a faggit"
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
faggit? Is that some new spelling you guys are using to co-opt the word as your own? Sort of like how feminists were spelling "women" as "womyn" for the longest time?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
faggit? Is that some new spelling you guys are using to co-opt the word as your own? Sort of like how feminists were spelling "women" as "womyn" for the longest time?
Maybe silly, but I just couldn't bring myself to use slurs like Coulter does.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Second, I don't hate Democrats, or share Coulter's sweeping contempt for all Democrats. I disagree with them frequently, but occasionally find their arguments a valid contribution to the national dialogue. (Despite the rabid contempt for conservatives, voiced by many --but not all-- Democrats)
OK maybe it's more complex than just hating democrats but would you have found her remarks funny if the names were switched with Republicans or just contempt? I could see the Al Gore stuff being nasty funny but the rest just seemed like pure venom.
But Coulter was more clever than that. She playfully said she wanted to discuss Edwards, but political correctness restrained her from using the word "fag", and so she would have to end her presentation there and take questions from the audience instead.
It's not the most clever remark I've ever heard, but it was playful and funny, in the way she implied it without coming right out and saying "John Edwards is a fag".
I'd compare it to remarks Gore made on Saturday Night Live, which despite my not supporting or liking Gore politically, I still found playful and funny.
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Finally, I don't have to agree with the sentiment of a remark to find it funny. One of my favorite short stories is "Santa Claus vs. S.P.I.D.E.R." by Harlan Ellison, written in 1969, that mocks Ronald Reagan and many other conservative politicians of that era. It's a very clever parody, of conservatives, and also of the James Bond novels of Ian Fleming.
I'm guessing Ellison did something a bit higher brow than "Ronald Reagan was a faggit"
Not by much. He pretty much uses story elements to say that Republicans are inhuman to pursue the policies they do, and that they are mindless zombies under the control of evil forces.
He playfully works these implied insults into the story.
Like I said, I disagree with the political viewpoint, but am still amused by the author's satirical framework for expressing his views.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
I'm sorry, Dave, but I can't agree with you that Ann's initial remark was clever at all.
Furthermore, when she does stuff like this, she distracts from what serious conservatives said that the CPAC conference, many of who, in fact, disavowed her remarks almost immediately.
She really needs to stop pulling shit like this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
faggit? Is that some new spelling you guys are using to co-opt the word as your own? Sort of like how feminists were spelling "women" as "womyn" for the longest time?
Maybe silly, but I just couldn't bring myself to use slurs like Coulter does.
Instead, you make up your own 'new and different' slurs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Yeah, if misspelling a slur means it isn't a slur, then WBAM could never slur anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
blood sucking joose
Aunti-semyte!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
|
|
Tabarnak! 6000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 7,281 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
blood sucking joose
Dude...it'd be jooz. Blood sucking joose is likely to get you a lawsuit with Kool-Aid....
If karma's a bitch, it will be my bitch!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,952 Likes: 6 |
Ah, shaddup, you stupid kanook
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
err, I did say it may be silly.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
I'm sorry, Dave, but I can't agree with you that Ann's initial remark was clever at all.
Furthermore, when she does stuff like this, she distracts from what serious conservatives said that the CPAC conference, many of who, in fact, disavowed her remarks almost immediately.
She really needs to stop pulling shit like this.
Like I said at the bottom of the previous topic page:
Quote:
WB said:
It's not the most clever remark I've ever heard, but it was playful and funny, in the way she implied it without coming right out and saying "John Edwards is a fag".
I'd compare it to remarks Gore made on Saturday Night Live, which despite my not supporting or liking Gore politically, I still found playful and funny.
Though I would agree with you that Coulter's sweeping generalizations and demonization of Democrats/liberals, does allow Democrats to dismissively focus on her more hyperbolically extreme statements, rather than on the serious points she raises.
And Coulter's insulting rhetoric of Edwards, and similar remarks, does a disservice to Republicans as a whole, allowing Democrats to portray all Republicans being as vicious and partisan as Coulter is.
And really, I've always taken pride in the fact that Republicans are more civil and respectful in their rhetoric than the Democrats are. While it's satisfying to see someone like Coulter give Democrats a taste of their own venom, using these tactics ultimately brings her arguments down to the same level as the Democrats she criticizes.
Coulter's remark about the 9-11 widows "enjoying" their husbands' deaths is another example, where her remark gave the Democrat opposition license to bypass her otherwise well-made point, that the widows had exploited their widow-status, to become spokesperson celebrities for the Democrats.
And by going public, the widows had waived their private status, that if they publicly criticized Bush, their arguments and their motives are equally open to counter-criticism. (as opposed to the "beyond reproach" attitude of outrage by Democrats, to fair criticism of the spokesperson 9-11 widows, Cindy Sheehan, John Murtha, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, etc)
|
|
|
|
|
