Unpatriotic

[shmokes]

Can someone point me to an example of someone (someone significant, not just an average joe) actually using the word "unpatriotic" to describe people who oppose the Iraq war?  Google isn't helping.

[ChadTower]

I wouldn't bet on it because it's grammatically incorrect.

It's like saying "I was Patriotic, but then I started to actively convert people to USA haters and unpatriotizing people".

Un- is really supposed to prefix verbs.  Non- is for adjectives.

[Stingray]

The correct term is unpatrioticalful.

-S

[ChadTower]

It is pronounced Un-pate-ree-awt-ick-ew-ler

[Havok]

It can also be pronounced re

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Shmokes,

If you're looking for a direct reference like that, it probably doesn't exist. The current group of right-wing thugs aren't man enough to just come out and say it, instead they indirectly insult the opposition through a variety of means.

[fredster]

Try looking for "coward" instead of "Unpatriotic"

[Dartful Dodger]

Try looking for "coward" instead of "Unpatriotic"

I think they prefer to be called "courageously challenged".

[brophog]

Maybe one day we'll get smart and figure out they pick a two party system just to trick us.

[quarterback]

Search for the quote from 2004 where democrats were accused of wanting to coddle the 9/11 hijackers. 

"Coddle" wasn't the word used, but I can't remember exactly what the quote was.  The implication of the sentence was that instead of stringing these guys up, the democrats would have wanted to sit down and talk to them compassionately and let them cry on their shoulders.

EDIT:  Sorry, upon re-reading your original post, I see you're looking for something specifically about the Iraq war.   The quote I mentioned just popped into my mind because I remember having a real "WTF?" reaction when I heard it.  Much like my reaction to that knucklehead woman from Ohio that called Murtha a coward.

[quarterback]

If you're looking for a direct reference like that, it probably doesn't exist.
...
 they indirectly insult the opposition through a variety of means.

This is true.   The actual quotes usually revolve around things like "not supporting our troops" or "putting our troops at greater risk" or "encouraging the terrorists" or things like that.

EDIT: Try searching for the Ed Gillespie memo that got leaked in Nov 2003 about how to attack the Democrats. 

[danny_galaga]

patriotism is for jack-boot wearers...

anarachists unite!  (if, of course you could ever get them together...)

[fredster]

Good! With no government, I can come and kill you!
It's not against the law if there are no laws now is it?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Good! With no government, I can come and kill you!
It's not against the law if there are no laws now is it?

You can still be killed. Laws or not. In fact, your own government may send you to far away deserts to die without justification, just because they want to.

Laws and government don't always keep you safe. But I generally agree, humans are too selfish and aggressive (ie: you first thought without Gov't was to kill someone) - hence, anarchy will never be a viable ideology.


mrC

[fredster]

Man, I'll have to write that down in my big book of DEEP THOUGHTS

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Man, I'll have to write that down in my big book of DEEP THOUGHTS

Big book?



mrC

[fredster]

Yeah, I'm getting them from your thread posts. 

[Zakk]

No worries Mr C.  There's now WAY Fred's mom is letting him outside if "the anarchy" is going on.  He'll be scubbing her bunions at home where it's safe, same as every night.

[ChadTower]

Yes, Fred would take care of his mother himself, rather than send her out to a facility and scream that the state should be doing it.

[fredster]

No Zakk, it's YO MAMA that won't let me out. She likes it toooo much ....

[Dartful Dodger]

Good! With no government, I can come and kill you!
It's not against the law if there are no laws now is it?

With no government we'd all be armed to the teeth, and no one would kill anyone.

By 'we', I mean those of us that matter, the rest would, of course, be killed off.  This would be part of God's and Darwin's plan, so we'd all be happy with the results.

By 'we', I mean me.

[USSEnterprise]

I think Cheney did say at some point that you are unpatriotic if you do not support the president

[ChadTower]

I agree with a part of that sentiment.

You are not patriotic if you do not support the Office of the President.

You do not necessarily have to support every decision the actual President makes but you should always stand behind the Office and his authority to make them.

[Harry Potter]

You do not necessarily have to support every decision the actual President makes but you should always stand behind the Office and his authority to make them.

Even if you didn't vote for the guy?

Or voted at all?

[ChadTower]

You aren't separating the Office from the man.

If you voted for anyone for President than you voted for the Office, no matter who won.

If you did not vote than you are not Patriotic in my eyes because you can't be bothered to take an hour out of your life and do your civic duty as an American.

[Harry Potter]

That makes me Patriotic by default because in Australia we have compulsory voting.

I don't mind voting since it's only 10 minutes I'd spend doing ---smurf-poo--- anyway.

But if the guy i voted for didn't get in, I'd find it hard to support him or the office.

[ChadTower]

The Office is a larger concept than the man sitting in it.

As an example... internally, you can fight the President's policies.  That is fighting the man.

If someone were to try and change the rights and responsibilities of the President, that would be attacking the Office.

They are separate, though subtly at times, concepts.

[Harry Potter]

The Office is a larger concept than the man sitting in it.

I agree with that, but a lot of the times, the man seems to be getting so much attention that no one pays any heed to what the office is doing.

Next thing you know, the office is doing sneaky stuff out of everyone's view.

We seem to be getting this a bit here recently.

[ChadTower]

That's pretty much true of any office, though, at any level.  Doesn't make it any better but it sure isn't specific to the Office of the President.

[Harry Potter]

That's true.

I love it when it used to happen at our office. The damn CEO was constantly getting all sorts of good/bad attention, meanwhile the company was slowly crumbling around us.

AT least the new guy is clever enough on staying out of most press conferences and concentrates on running the company. And it actually worked.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You do not necessarily have to support every decision the actual President makes but you should always stand behind the Office and his authority to make them.

Disregarding the inherent fascist nature of this statement for one moment, let me address one point.

That this statement is completely unnecessary, really. There are very few people then - by your definition - that would be considered 'unpatriotic', since it seems no one is arguing for changing "the rights and responsibilities of the President" and rather a large number of people, are instead, directly opposing one particular president's policies.

By trying to further define this irrelevant subtly, and in turn, ignoring the subtext of how this McCarthyesque 'patriotic/unpatriotic' rhetoric is being used, all you do is give validity to the flimsy attacks being perpetrated by the right. As much as you say you disagree with some of this president's policies yourself, you sure do shoot a LOT of flack around in - what can be reasonably perceived as - his defense.

Also, what do you mean by "internally"?

mrC

[ChadTower]

Internal -> inside the United States.

Most of the reason I defend him, when I do, is because I get sick of all of the one note idiots out there screaming "BUSH BAD BUSH BAD".  Sure, he sucks, but BUSH BAD without LET'S DO THIS INSTEAD is of no use to anyone interested in actual improvement.

I prefer construction to destruction, and most people will never be capable of seeing farther than the destruction of the immediately bad towards the construction of what could be now or could be later.

As bad as Bush is now, I have grave reservations about what may happen in terms of our geopolitical security were he to be removed from office via criminal process... that would HAVE to be considered, though I know few people who would ever give it a second thought.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Most of the reason I defend him, when I do, is because I get sick of all of the one note idiots out there screaming "BUSH BAD BUSH BAD".

That is really sad.

without LET'S DO THIS INSTEAD...

This is not true. Time and again, I've pointed out plan after plan, suggestion after suggestion, by either myself, other progressives, party Democrats, even Republicans. To say you disagree with said plan, or that you find fault in them is one thing, but to say that they simply don't exist is a blatant lie. Or you are just being ignorant on purpose. There can be no other reason and I'm tired of pointing it out to you.

It's intellectually lazy of you and completely disingenuous. Stop saying it.




mrC

[fredster]

MrC, that's respect for authority.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I prefer construction to destruction..

This is a PERFECT example of your generally arrogant and egotistical nature (I call it like I see it, and I think you've agreed with my on this point before)...

As if only YOUR suggestions are "constructive", or only the ones you agree with - and all others are "destructive."

It's bullshite.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Where do you get "inherent fascist nature of this statement " out of respect for the office.

To suggest that we as citizens can not EVER question the authority of the president is fascist. We live in a Democracy, and we as citizens have a right and I'd say a duty to control his mandate. The Constitution and all of Congress are, in fact, in existence as a check and balance of presidential authority, which is the very essence of our very foundation as a democracy . To suggest that it's unpatriotic to question that authority is, in itself unpatriotic and reads as inherently fascist. Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, etc...they agreed with absolute authority.

It's a cop. You don't beat up cops because you don't like them. You have to respect their AUTHORITI.

You respect the RULE OF LAW, and a police officers duty to uphold that law. They are only given as much 'authority' as said law allows and ever day cops are held to account because they chose to abused that authority, so much so that - at times - that authority is reconfigured through legislation.

I can't even tell where you are comming from in that last post. Most of the time I can see your twisted view of the world, but really "McCarthyesque".  That this statement is completely unnecessary, really.

"Unpatriotic" is the new "Red scare"...get with the times old man.

This is not true. Time and again, I've pointed out plan after plan, suggestion after suggestion, by either myself, other progressives, party Democrats, even Republicans.

When? I've been looking for that for a while.  Have an example there?

There's a little thing called the "search button"...use it.


mrC

[fredster]

This is a PERFECT example of your generally arrogant and egotistical nature

All he said was "I prefer construction to destruction.."

[mr.Curmudgeon]

"To suggest that it's unpatriotic to question that authority is, in itself unpatriotic and reads as inherently fascist." Nope.  It's not. You can question authority, but you have to do what they say while you question.

So if a cop asks you to give him a hummer and you don't, then he arrests you...and someone video taped it, who wins that case in a court of law?

Respecting the authority of any particular office, over the Rule of Law, is fascist...no matter how many times you say "no"...party of "no", indeed. That's why they are called "officers" fredster, they are slaves to a mandate created by legislation (ie: an office).

"Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, Pol Pot, etc...they agreed with absolute authority."
So you think that Saddam was bad! I like that! 

I think a lot of people are bad, fredster, doesn't mean I think it's entirely wise to send our army into their country and try to force democracy down the throats of their citizens.

With all of this rethoric and vitiolic crap you put out comparing one dis-simalar thing to another, you can still say that I, the Fredster, make "straw man arguements" ? With a straight face?

Yep. Stating something with vitriol is not the same as putting forth a straw man. I can be angry and right, and you can be passive and wrong.

But if the cop is busting you and you don't like it, you can't say "I won't do that because I don't like the way you are doing it".

No. Normally, you can't. But, as I mentioned above, there are exceptions.

McCarthy was right. They did infiltrate.

So now you'll willingly make yourself look like an ass, and agree with McCarthy...after getting all uppity about me stating that something seemed "McCarthyesque" ?

You'll say you are joking, but I'll guess you most likely are not.


mrC

[duffjr]

I wouldn't bet on it because it's grammatically incorrect.

It's like saying "I was Patriotic, but then I started to actively convert people to USA haters and unpatriotizing people".

Un- is really supposed to prefix verbs.  Non- is for adjectives.

there are 2 un's in english.  one attaches to verbs and the other attaches to adjectives.

un:  prefix, attaches to A/Adv, not A/Adv
un:  prefix, attaches to V, do opposite of V

non:  prefix, attaches to N, A; not N, A

anti:  prefix, attaches to N, forms A, against N

they're all something like this.

[ChadTower]

This is not true. Time and again, I've pointed out plan after plan, suggestion after suggestion, by either myself, other progressives, party Democrats, even Republicans. To say you disagree with said plan, or that you find fault in them is one thing, but to say that they simply don't exist is a blatant lie. Or you are just being ignorant on purpose. There can be no other reason and I'm tired of pointing it out to you.

It's intellectually lazy of you and completely disingenuous. Stop saying it.

Or, perhaps, it is arrogant of you to think when I say such things I speak entirely about you.

There are several million people out there screaming the things I mentioned.  None of them are you, yet they exist, and in gigantic quantity.

[Crazy Cooter]

Shmokes,

If you're looking for a direct reference like that, it probably doesn't exist. The current group of right-wing thugs aren't man enough to just come out and say it, instead they indirectly insult the opposition through a variety of means.

Like saying terrorist 80 times when talking about an exit stratergy for Iraq?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

Either they're terrorists or they're insurgents... Iraq wants to talk with insurgents so they must be terrorists... but Saddam didn't deal with terrorists so then we brought them in?  But then it would be a civil matter... so they must be terrorists...

It's all political BS.

[danny_galaga]

The Office is a larger concept than the man sitting in it.

phew!

[ChadTower]

Either they're terrorists or they're insurgents... Iraq wants to talk with insurgents so they must be terrorists... but Saddam didn't deal with terrorists so then we brought them in?

[Goz]

Either they're terrorists or they're insurgents... Iraq wants to talk with insurgents so they must be terrorists... but Saddam didn't deal with terrorists so then we brought them in?  But then it would be a civil matter... so they must be terrorists...

Really?  You sure about that?  Is it not possible to be one thing on one day, and then one thing on another?

When an Iraqi fights the US soldiers, that would make him an insurgent.

What is he when he kills other Iraqis?

Muslim? 

[ChadTower]

THAT I don't like.  I have quite a few Muslim friends and none of them are violent.  Hell, I'm more violent than they are.

Man, if anyone saw Dennis Leary's Merry F'ing Christmas on Comedy Central the other day... HOLY CRAP... they had this pseudo Charlie Brown skit where Charlie Brown and Linus went Muslim... it was so ridiculously intolerant I was disgusted.  And it was on a holiday comedy special.  It looked exactly like the animated racist films from the 40s that no one shows anymore.

How is that acceptable in modern America?  Here many of us thought we had moved somewhat beyond that crap when really all many people were doing was waiting for something else to openly hate.

[patrickl]

You can feign indignation, but the religion of these people is what sets them off. Odd thing is that both groups are muslims just one group is considered less muslim than the other.

[Goz]

THAT I don't like.  I have quite a few Muslim friends and none of them are violent.  Hell, I'm more violent than they are.

Man, if anyone saw Dennis Leary's Merry F'ing Christmas on Comedy Central the other day... HOLY CRAP... they had this pseudo Charlie Brown skit where Charlie Brown and Linus went Muslim... it was so ridiculously intolerant I was disgusted.  And it was on a holiday comedy special.  It looked exactly like the animated racist films from the 40s that no one shows anymore.

How is that acceptable in modern America?  Here many of us thought we had moved somewhat beyond that crap when really all many people were doing was waiting for something else to openly hate.

I hear ya Chad... It was for the most part an attempt at levity. I too know muslims who are very nice and non violent. I also know some that are extreme and are certifiable whack jobs. Muslims kill muslims every day and extemist kill people who have different beliefs and claim it as part of the Islamic religion. It is a religion based on idiology and with any idiology you have people at both ends of the spectrum. Not much unlike our own political parties. Extemist give a bad rep to any group or religion be it good or bad in nature. Unfortunately all you hear about is Muslims celebrating when someone blows some ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- up. You don't hear any good muslims denouncing the action so it's not surprising that muslims are generally lumped into one group.

-Goz

[mr.Curmudgeon]

How is that acceptable in modern America?  Here many of us thought we had moved somewhat beyond that crap when really all many people were doing was waiting for something else to openly hate.

I don't know what country you've been living in, but here in the U.S., racism and intolerance are still in healthy abundance, it's just hidden behind codewords and smokescreen agendas.

The latest codeword seems to be 'Cultural Discomfort'...it's safer than just saying "lynch 'em" or "run 'em out of town", but it's nothing but covert racism.

If you have friends with a skin color any darker than eggshell white, ask them how they think America sees them. Ask them if they feel they're being treated the same as you. Perception is everything. I've had Japanese, Brazilian, African-American, Indian, Pakistani and friends of other nationalities all confirm to me that they certainly do not feel as accepted in American cultural society as they imagine I am (being white).

Furthermore, if you want to talk about intolerance and bigotry, then look no further than how we treat individuals of the homosexual persuasion. The president of this country proposed creating a freakin' Amendment to the Constitution, in an unprecedented attempt to limit the rights of a minority. Bush basically won reelection by catering to the deep-seeded hatred of homosexuals in this country. It was no coincidence that legislation banning gay-marriage was placed on the ballot in at least a dozen highly contested states in the 2004 election, in order to bring out his base. It wasn't an illegal tactic, but I do find it morally reprehensible.

Anyhow, my point is, we may have come a long way with the legislation of equal rights and anti-discrimination laws, but we've got a looong way to go before the dark clouds of bigotry, fear and intolerance hovering over American society are sufficiently burned away.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Unfortunately all you hear about is Muslims celebrating when someone blows some ---Cleveland steamer--- up. You don't hear any good muslims denouncing the action so it's not surprising that muslims are generally lumped into one group.

So, are you suggesting that this is because there are a lack of "good muslims" or are you willing to entertain the notion that our media and our society are not interested in hearing what they have to say?

For my part, spending even a limited amount of time searching, I've been able to find an overwhelming amount of condemnation by any number of Muslim groups, of the fundamentalism that has hijacked their religion. The problem is that I've had to "search"...why isn't our media reporting on this information? I mean, it's out there, I've found it myself. Are local Muslims supposed to hand out flowers and candy on every U.S. street corner every time some whack-job blows up an IED in Iraq?

The easiest solution, if you really want to know how Muslims feel, is to just go down to your local Mosque and talk to them. I guarantee it'll open your mind.

Quick reference of Muslim condemnation of Terrorist attacks: http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

mrC

[Goz]

If you search the net you will find referrences to articles this is true.

If you listen to mainstream media (pick any station on tv or radio) you only hear negative reports of Muslims activities and I have tried looking for and listening to what is being reported and haven't heard or seen anything on tv or radio.

[ChadTower]

You can feign indignation, but the religion of these people is what sets them off. Odd thing is that both groups are muslims just one group is considered less muslim than the other.

So how would you compare this to the millions of people who have been killed in the name of Jesus?

Is it better or worse that modern Christianity is plagued by child rapists, and that the Vatican not only does not attempt to stop it, but rewards those who hide it with prestigious promotions?

[Goz]

You can feign indignation, but the religion of these people is what sets them off. Odd thing is that both groups are muslims just one group is considered less muslim than the other.

So how would you compare this to the millions of people who have been killed in the name of Jesus?

Is it better or worse that modern Christianity is plagued by child rapists, and that the Vatican not only does not attempt to stop it, but rewards those who hide it with prestigious promotions?

Not sounding very tolerant Mr. C....  (yes again a joke)

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This is not true. Time and again, I've pointed out plan after plan, suggestion after suggestion, by either myself, other progressives, party Democrats, even Republicans. To say you disagree with said plan, or that you find fault in them is one thing, but to say that they simply don't exist is a blatant lie. Or you are just being ignorant on purpose. There can be no other reason and I'm tired of pointing it out to you.

It's intellectually lazy of you and completely disingenuous. Stop saying it.

Or, perhaps, it is arrogant of you to think when I say such things I speak entirely about you.

There are several million people out there screaming the things I mentioned.  None of them are you, yet they exist, and in gigantic quantity.

I wasn't assuming you were speaking of just me, which is exactly why I said, "I've pointed out plan after plan, suggestion after suggestion, by either myself, other progressives, party Democrats, even Republicans."

The fact remains, you're spreading the "they don't have any ideas" meme, when it's nothing more than Republican spin. Very effective spin though, not because it's true necessarily - because the Democrats *have* offered alternatives - but effective because the Democrats have not been successful at marketing these ideas. Partly this is their fault for a lack of savvy, partly it's the Republicans fault because they have effectively shut out the minority party through various strong-arm tactics.

The ideas are out there, you may not like them, and they may not be as refined as you'd think they should be, but to say they don't exist is nothing but disingenuous spin.

If you were honest about it, you'd see that the Dems are in a precarious situation. Effectively locked out of power, yet forced to present a successful platform/agenda they wouldn't even be able to implement yet. Given this, I imagine we'll see a strong campaign in '06...and until then, it behooves the Dems to show their hand, less the Republicans adopt their strategies. Or worse yet, manipulate the truth surrounding the Dem platform.

That said, the Dems have been successful in some arenas, while only slightly tipping their hand. For example, they flat-out trounced Bush and his signature platform for '04, Privatization of Social Security; and they are winning the battle on the perception of Bush's war in Iraq. Murtha single-handedly changed the debate and now we see the Bush administration signaling all sorts of "pull-out" (ie: talking up the Iraqi Armed Forces, timelines for the vote in Iraq, etc). They'll still call the Dems plan the "cut n' run" strategy, all the while trying to figure out how to get us out all the same.

Lastly, Dems at the local level have seen a tremendously positive response to their "non-existent" ideas, some are finding support in the "reddest" of places. See: Hackett V. Schmidt, Kaine in Virginia (Red State). Expect more of this in '06.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Not sounding very tolerant Mr. C....  (yes again a joke)

Maybe because that wasn't me? That was Chad. Unless I'm missing the joke?!


mrC

[ChadTower]

You responded to my post and referred to Mr C.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If you search the net you will find referrences to articles this is true.

If you listen to mainstream media (pick any station on tv or radio) you only hear negative reports of Muslims activities and I have tried looking for and listening to what is being reported and haven't heard or seen anything on tv or radio.

That's my POINT! You agree that this "good Muslim" sentiment exists, yet you'll blame them for the lack of media coverage of it? How does that make any sense?



mrC

[ChadTower]

I think if there were a more prominent, clear message from Muslim leaders denouncing the violence, there would be a lot less intolerance from many otherwise reasonable people.

The point that we have not heard much denunciation at all does happen to be a valid one.  It makes the logical leap from "they are people who hate and are muslim" to "they are muslims who hate" a very small one.

[Goz]

You responded to my post and referred to Mr C.  Mr C is someone else.

What we have with these radical muslims is really no different than the radical Christians that used to march across continents, murdering anyone who did not convert.  They are not doing it for their religion any more than those Christians were killing for their religion.

What we have is some very well funded people who hate someone else enough to kill them and are using their religion as an excuse.

Yeah I screwed up on the reply.... not been sleeping much; so ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- happens.

I agree that it is a group of people playing the religion card.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I think if there were a more prominent, clear message from Muslim leaders denouncing the violence, there would be a lot less intolerance from many otherwise reasonable people.

You can't get more prominent than Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani...he's been pretty outspoken about violence being perpetrated by both sides, American and Muslim. As a side note to how important a figure Sistani is, let's reference the fact that he is the sole reason Iraqi elections ever took place. It seems to have fallen down the memory hole, but Bush's administration fought hard against direct elections in Iraq for a long, long time (they wanted appointments, rotating presidency)...If anyone is responsible for any potential Democratic outcome in Iraqi, it's Sistani. As hard as that may be to swallow. [LINK]

I'm sure Muslims everywhere *could* decide to spend millions of dollars trying to placate fearful Americans, but, in reality, why should they be forced to constantly battle against, what amounts to a very small handful of extremists in their midsts? Do I think it may help public perception? Maybe. Do I think they are obligated to do so? Not at all.

Do you think every Catholic needs to assert that they aren't child molesters?


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yeah I screwed up on the reply.... not been sleeping much; so ---Cleveland steamer--- happens.

What scares me...is that you could even get us confused!?   


mrC

[ChadTower]

Do you think every Catholic needs to assert that they aren't child molesters?

Every Catholic official should.

[Goz]

Yeah I screwed up on the reply.... not been sleeping much; so ---Cleveland steamer--- happens.

What scares me...is that you could even get us confused!?   


mrC

It scares me too... I normally hold Chad with high regards.   The two of you are typically very different.   

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It scares me too... I normally hold Chad with high regards.   The two of you are typically very different.   

And it's apparent from your quoting him as if he were me (as well as those high regards), that you never read anything he actually says!   

Every Catholic official should.

Chad,

But they haven't, and yet almost every Muslim official, scholar, and spiritual leader *has* condemned terrorism. Now, I know you're advocating that they should do more. But what? Commercials? Broadway shows? What?



mrC

[fredster]

MrC,
No, I'm not joking about McCarthy. Not at all. He was right.

As far as intolernace and bigotry, I'm sorry people, it is a natural function of our species. It cannot be overcome completely.

[ChadTower]

Chad,

But they haven't, and yet almost every Muslim official, scholar, and spiritual leader *has* condemned terrorism. Now, I know you're advocating that they should do more. But what? Commercials? Broadway shows? What?

You are right, the Catholic officials have not done a damn thing except aid and abet child rapists.  The only way this relates to Muslim officials and terrorism is that it is analagous in that neither of them have done as much as could have been done to prevent and/or get the message out that it is not inherent in the faith itself.

You must have some direct line to thousands upon thousands of Muslim clergy (I don't know the Islamic term so I use clergy) that no one else seems to have.  I have heard some vague statements issued by some Islamic higher ups about how this or that particular act was bad.  I have yet to hear a major effort by the Muslim hierarchy to specifically distance themself from terrorism as a whole.

Much like the Catholic church, it isn't coming.  Why?  To a church/mosque, this is just a tiny blip of time.  We will all be dead in 75 years.  The religion will remain, just as it has for 2000+ years.  Let the issue fade and in 200 years no one will remember it. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You must have some direct line to thousands upon thousands of Muslim clergy (I don't know the Islamic term so I use clergy) that no one else seems to have.

Yeah, it's called Google. I just choose not to minimize and ignore what they have to say, simply because it isn't pre-packaged for safe consumption on our national airwaves.

I have heard some vague statements issued by some Islamic higher ups about how this or that particular act was bad.  I have yet to hear a major effort by the Muslim hierarchy to specifically distance themself from terrorism as a whole.

And you have yet to suggest what that 'major effort' might be?!  I'm serious about this, you're the self-appointed 'King of Solutions', and I'm going to hold you to that standard. What, pray-tell, should they do? What more can you reasonably expect them to do? Come to your house and wash your feet?

There are 1.6 BILLION Muslims worldwide. "Among every four humans in the world, one of them is Muslim. Muslims have increased by over 235 percent in the last fifty years up to nearly 1.6 billion. By comparison, Christians have increased by only 47 percent, Hinduism, 117 percent, and Buddhism by 63 percent."

It is the fastest growing religion in the world, second only to Christianity which has 2.1 billion adherents. [LINK]

There are extremist sects in every religion, why should the generally law-abiding and moderate majority be held accountable for the actions of a few?


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Btw, Chad, you might want to consider that Islam isn't set up like the Catholic church. They don't have a "Pope" or a Vatican. So your call for a centralized, unified message, or grand pronouncement from Islam's highest spiritual leader, just isn't possible.

But, as I've pointed out to you earlier, some of the highest ranking Muslim scholars and Grand Ayatollah's (Spiritual Leaders) have spread the message and spoken out about the heresy of this notion of sanctioned murder/terrorism.



mrC

[ChadTower]

There are extremist sects in every religion, why should the generally law-abiding and moderate majority be held accountable for the actions of a few?

Because we are talking about the laws of public perception, not the laws of statistics.

[Stingray]

Abortions, flags.

-S

[fredster]

There are extremist sects in every religion, why should the generally law-abiding and moderate majority be held accountable for the actions of a few?

Yeah like Jim Jones or Waco.

I agree with Mr Cynical on this one. But what I think I, and perhaps others have a problem with, is that we don't really understand all of the different sects of this religion or even what a moderate is.

I don't even understand that for Christians to tell you the truth.  I know Baptists have a hard time with Methodists (at least from what I hear).

I'm sure that one or two muslim priests or clerics or whatever they call themselves condem the death of muslims, and of children, but not for the attack itself.

That google search you were talking about didn't turn up much. One or two.  The same story like 50 times. 

I'm not saying the muslims are bad. I have no opinion of Muslims per say.  Why isn't this being shown in the media?  There are major organizations of Muslims in the US and abroad that don't post anything about the attacks on Americans.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I work in a field with a very large proportion of muslims.  I do not hear "gee, those terrorists, they sure do suck" from them when something happens.  What I hear is silence, and silence is not the same as lack of a message.

See, now you're talking about a response at a very, very, personal level. Is that really fair?

Maybe they don't feel any more responsible than you do, for these attacks? Maybe they're intimidated, for example, by people like yourself, who might be staring at them hoping for a response? Maybe they just assume that the people around them don't suspect that they sympathize with the terrorists simply because they haven't pinned American flags on everything in their Cube?

Seriously, I still haven't heard any ideas on how you expect them to turn the tide of public perception. Maybe your lack of ideas is a testament to how virtually impossible that task really is, and how unreasonably high your expectations are.

Even as an atheist, I don't assume that the actions of the fringe right in America speak for the majority of Christians, and I certainly, in no way assume that the actions of some lunatic terrorist speaks for all of Islam.

mrC

[ChadTower]

Seriously, I still haven't heard any ideas on how you expect them to turn the tide of public perception. Maybe your lack of ideas is a testament to how virtually impossible that task really is, and how unreasonably high your expectations are.

I don't have solutions because I don't believe they intend to change such perception.  I honestly don't think they care, and as much as that is their right, it is not going to make things better.

This is a fundamental difference between the US execution of this war and the Islamic (a much broader distinction, I know) execution.  We are fighting both a military AND PR war and it is failing.  You can't point a gun at someone while shouting "please don't hate me" and expect it to work.  The other side of this war, self defined as Islamic, doesn't make that mistake and isn't going to do anything to change it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I don't have solutions because I don't believe they intend to change such perception. 

Well, now that's just a cop-out. You are hereby demoted from "King of Solutions" to "Prince of Solutions"...


mrC

[ChadTower]

I don't remember ever claiming all of my solutions are the best available.  Don't forget that often my solution is bend over while I swing my foot.

[fredster]

Seriously, I still haven't heard any ideas on how you expect them to turn the tide of public perception. Maybe your lack of ideas is a testament to how virtually impossible that task really is, and how unreasonably high your expectations are

My guess is you missed The President's entire campaign and his inaugrial address?

[ChadTower]

Well, Bush didn't win because he had a good plan, he won because his opponent was an even worse candidate than Bush.

[patrickl]

You can feign indignation, but the religion of these people is what sets them off. Odd thing is that both groups are muslims just one group is considered less muslim than the other.

So how would you compare this to the millions of people who have been killed in the name of Jesus?

Is it better or worse that modern Christianity is plagued by child rapists, and that the Vatican not only does not attempt to stop it, but rewards those who hide it with prestigious promotions?

I'm not sure where you are trying to go here. I don't care much for violent history (and present with Bush) of christianity either no.

You are right people shouldn't generalise, but the guy made a joke and I just get kinda miffed when people act all high and mighty about the use of the word "muslims".

[fredster]

Patrickl, where not you the one complaining about Muslim kids in your neighborhood recently?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

My guess is you missed The President's entire campaign and his inaugrial address?  Remember? Give them Freedom.  Keep them free and able to openly exchange ideas, spread freedom to the women.  Institue trade, etc.

No...I heard it alright. But like most everything he's done, it's "words speak louder than action."

I guess you missed that whole thing didn't you?  You know, the reason why Bush was elected AGAIN against Kerry?  It was a pretty Bold vision, and since it didn't involve redistriubtion of wealth or rights of seagulls, I guess you just missed that whole point huh?

Bush was elected because Kerry didn't run an effective campaign against the fear and hatred fermented by the right. Bush had about as bold a plan as he had a "mandate." (Which is a joke, btw, since he won by the smallest margin an incumbant has ever had, especially during war time)

The idea is to FIRST make sure they have a democratic government. Then let everybody have a chance to vote.  After people do that, then they can start having trade and exchange.  See? That was why BUSH won.

Did you forget that Bush, in the initial stages after he declared "mission accomplished", actually fought against having a democratic vote in Iraq? See my link upthread about Sistani. So you'll excuse me if I don't actually trust him on that mission. This whole "spreading Democracy" slogan only came into effect after the WMD/Al Qaeda search turned up squat. They had plans to turn that death trap over to Chalabi, and he, in turned promised rebuilding contracts and resources for us. Didn't work out, since he ended up being an Iranian spy who fed us intelligence gathered from a mentally handicap fabricator. Good times.

mrC

[patrickl]

Look at France.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Most of the time I can see your twisted view of the world, but really "McCarthyesque".  That this statement is completely unnecessary, really.

MrC,
No, I'm not joking about McCarthy. Not at all. He was right.

So was that first quote feigned outrage, or just pure unadulterated bullsh!t? You're slipping man...


mrC
EDIT: Congrats! You've made my sigline...

[ChadTower]

Some manage to break free from the misery and crime, but most are doomed to live in the ghetto's.

Who is committing all of these crimes?

[fredster]

Mr C, thanks for the touching sentiment.

If you notice, I used your words exactly "That this statement is completely unnecessary, really."

I thought Ann Coulter had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe McCarthy was right and all the people he procecuted were actual communists infiltrating the government in "How to Speak to a liberal - if you must".

You read that and Slander didn't you?  I mean, after all you do follow the classic patterns identified by Ann in about every one of your comments.

You have read Ann haven't you?

McCarthyism is a made up controversy by the liberals, after all.  So any referance to it is simply unnecessary....

Patrickl, sometimes I just can't understand what you are saying -

Maroccans just have a different way of bringing up kids (when the kid is out of the house it's not the problem of the parent).

What does that mean exactly? The Moroccans don't raise their kids right, but it's not their fault? Is that what I'm reading? Then who's fault is it? Genetics? Cosmic Rays?

to the situation of the african americans in the US. Some manage to break free from the misery and crime, but most are doomed to live in the ghetto's.

That would be a big surprise to all the black guys I work with.  Also to all the army guys I was in the Army with. Besides, they don't have ghettos in Tennesse.  We have mobile homes 

And even if what you are saying is even 1/2 way true, is it only because of acceptance that black people are in misery and crime? Is that what you are trying to say?

I think you made my point for me -

In the Netherlands there only is an issue with Maroccan and Antillian kids who just don't want to fit in. They use their religion to seperate themselves (they call dutch women whores since they don't cover themselves), but it is not because of their religion that they are hated.

A subgroup can be racist or bigoted right? YES?
And the use their religion to separate themselves...Now we are getting down to it.  It's their different BEHAVIOR that causes people to pre judge them huh? Or their religion to prejudge the dutch women.

It's always gonna be something. That was my point. It cannot be completely eliminated until we are all the same, exactly.  And then we will have rivalry within the group.  It's human nature, plain and simple.

In the US, we tried to legislate morality and work against human nature in the 1920's.  We outlawed alchol.  That worked great. NOT.

We can only regulate it. I don't believe it can ever be completely eliminated.

[patrickl]

Some manage to break free from the misery and crime, but most are doomed to live in the ghetto's.

Who is committing all of these crimes?

The people in the ghetto's?

[patrickl]

Patrickl, sometimes I just can't understand what you are saying -

Maroccans just have a different way of bringing up kids (when the kid is out of the house it's not the problem of the parent).

What does that mean exactly? The Moroccans don't raise their kids right, but it's not their fault? Is that what I'm reading? Then who's fault is it? Genetics? Cosmic Rays?

I was kinda terse yes. It means that the maroccan parents don't see it as their problem if their kid does something when it is not at home. If an american kid misbehaves somewhere their parents will give the kid a hard time. Tell a maroccan parent that their kid raped a girl and they will shrug their shoulders and go back drinking tea.

to the situation of the african americans in the US. Some manage to break free from the misery and crime, but most are doomed to live in the ghetto's.

That would be a big surprise to all the black guys I work with.

[ChadTower]

Some manage to break free from the misery and crime, but most are doomed to live in the ghetto's.

Who is committing all of these crimes?

The people in the ghetto's?

Who are the people in the ghettos again?

[fredster]

Well try taking a wrong exit going to an airport near just about every major city in the US and you'll find out how nicely the black folks live. Maybe all those houses and cars burn themselves and the fact that you need to run red lights since you can't stop cause otherwise someone breaks down your windows is only because they are friendly people who want to say hi.

I think there are white guys and mexican guys in that group too Patrickl.  There are some pretty well to do black folk around here these days. My last boss was black. Really good guy, and well qualified, as well as respected. I don't think it's the same thing. 

The rest of the text leads to this point, there will always be prejudice based on something. Most likely it will be based on people who look different from the larger group or act differently.

When the group is all the "same" then there will be prejudice based on class, job, or political point of view.

It's always gonna be something.  It's just a natural human flaw.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

McCarthyism is a made up controversy by the liberals, after all.  So any referance to it is simply unnecessary....

Spoken like a true revisionist. Have you no sense of shame?

I mean, after all you do follow the classic patterns identified by Ann in about every one of your comments.

That you count Coulter (a shrill she-man clown, famous for making up her own facts)  and McCarthy (a drunken, paranoid sexual deviant) as an influence on your thinking just about says it all.



mrC

[Grasshopper]

Fredster what is this weird obsession with Ann Coulter? When I posted something in the "greed" thread you also asked me whether I'd read her stuff implying that she was someone important. Well the answer at the time was no. In fact I'd never heard of her. But I checked on google and wasted ten minutes of my life reading her pearls of wisdom. Most of what she writes is so over the top it's beyond parody. You don't honestly take her seriously do you? I mean come on. I'm sure she doesn't believe half the stuff she writes herself. She's just realised that there's money to be made by being "controversial".

[mr.Curmudgeon]

She's a man, baby!  (with an adam's apple, and too much eye-liner!)


And she needs a Sammich...




mrC

[fredster]

Oh Grasshopper, Most of what you writes is so over the top it's beyond parody too, but I like ya still. I guess you don't watch Fox, so you don't know Ann, or Shawn, or anybody that's a conservative do you? 

And this "obsession" I have? You can look at those pictures and not understand the obsession? My God man, look at the throat on that woman!

Well Thanks MrC. God she is soooo hot.  Ann says that the liberals have revised history to say that Joe McCarthy was a bad thing. In her last book, she pretty much proved using historical archives and released documents that Senator McCarthy was right.

After all, did anybody ever prove he was wrong? It's like, did anybody ever prove that there was no Yellow cake?  Just that joe guy, huh?

And it's really funny that you think I'm being revisionist. I really think that's funny. 

So I owe you two!  You warmed my heart by posting pics of lovely Ann Coulter, and making me laugh. 

[shmokes]

Fred, seriously, she's ugly.

But besides that I have read Ann Coulter.  She's ridiculous.  You should read Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.  Chapter two is titled: Ann Coulter: Nutcase, and chapter three is:  You Know Who I Don't Like? Ann Coulter 

The difference between Al Franken and Ann Coulter is 1) Al Franken is really funny and his books (at least this one, I haven't read any others) are hillarious, and 2) Al Franken is honest.

After reading this book, or even the chapters devoted to Ann, you will no longer trust her.  You can't.  She makes Micheal Moore look like Jim Lehrer (PBS News Hour). 

Talking about Ann Coulter the way you do just makes you look like an absolute fool.  Continuing to trust her after everything you hear about her, without actually doing some fact checking goes well beyond making you merely look like a fool.

[ChadTower]

The difference between Al Franken and Ann Coulter is 1) Al Franken is really funny and his books (at least this one, I haven't read any others) are hillarious,

Al Franken THINKS he is funny.  He's not.  He's pretty much up there with Dave Barry in the "write some lazy jokes that people already agree with and they will laugh if I tell them to" laugh track humor.

[Havok]

But Ann Coulter is funny: just not in the way he\she would like - I find it amusing to listen to the drivel he\she spouts.

And, he\she is a bit manish...

[ChadTower]

What is the point, really, in debating the merits of the extreme examples on either side?  Neither Franken nor Coulter should be taken seriously by anyone interested in a fair point of view.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

What is the point, really, in debating the merits of the extreme examples on either side?  Neither Franken nor Coulter should be taken seriously by anyone interested in a fair point of view.

Franken is nowhere near ANYTHING like Coulter.

I'm not defending him just because he's "on my side"...I just disagree with you based on the facts I've seen. You spout unsubstantiated bull-puckey like this, I'd like to see you defend it.

Why shouldn't Franken be taken seriously? How is Franken *extreme*? Give me an example of where his rhetoric comes within a billion miles of anything spouted off by the hateful drag-queen Coulter?





mrC

[ChadTower]

Franken is nowhere near ANYTHING like Coulter. How is Franken *extreme*? Give me an example?

Don't have time, but take one quick peek at the title and the tactics.  Attacking specific individuals, rather than concepts and ideas, is a means of extremism.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Franken is nowhere near ANYTHING like Coulter. How is Franken *extreme*? Give me an example?

Don't have time, but take one quick peek at the title and the tactics.  Attacking specific individuals, rather than concepts and ideas, is a means of extremism.

Unless you've actually read PAST the title...then you don't know what you're talking about. Furthermore, why do you say things that you don't have either the time or interest to defend? Why bother?


You just equated Franken to Coulter...and we're supposed to take you seriously when you cop-out by saying "I don't have time?"  Could it be that you KNOW you're bullsh!ting?




mrC

[ChadTower]

Unless you've actually read PAST the title...then you don't know what you're talking about. Furthermore, why do you say things that you don't have either the time or interest to defend? Why bother?

I did, but unlike you, I guess, I'm not sitting here fogging up my screen waiting for a political debate.  I stated my opinion and that's all I care to do.  Feel free to write it off as one that is not an agreement with your own.

Could it be that you KNOW you're bullsh!ting?

I simply choose not to engage you in this debate.   Accept it.

[fredster]

Fred, seriously, she's ugly.

But besides that I have read Ann Coulter. She's ridiculous. You should read Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. Chapter two is titled: Ann Coulter: Nutcase, and chapter three is: You Know Who I Don't Like? Ann Coulter

The difference between Al Franken and Ann Coulter is 1) Al Franken is really funny and his books (at least this one, I haven't read any others) are hillarious, and 2) Al Franken is honest.

After reading this book, or even the chapters devoted to Ann, you will no longer trust her. You can't. She makes Micheal Moore look like Jim Lehrer (PBS News Hour).

Talking about Ann Coulter the way you do just makes you look like an absolute fool. Continuing to trust her after everything you hear about her, without actually doing some fact checking goes well beyond making you merely look like a fool.

Again Shmokes, it's you opinion, and your opinion ONLY.

[shmokes]

I read Franken's book...
 
...Franken and Coulter are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. It's pretty obvious that they would probably argue about something. 

Fred, WTF?  Do you really, honestly, think that you can get away with making a claim like that without being immediately identified as a fraud by anyone who actually has read the book? 

I'm not talking about disagreeing on politics.  I'm talking about Ann Coulter being deliberately and utterly dishonest in nearly everything she says.  Michael Moore is not as bad as Ann Coulter.  To criticize Michael Moore and give Coulter a shred of respect or credibility just exposes you as a hypocritical, partisan hack, no matter how often you tell people that you vote for the man, not for the party.  For real....read the book.  Or don't read the book, I suppose.  But don't claim to have read it if you haven't.  That ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- is just lame.

And Chad, I have no experience with Al Franken aside from that book.  I haven't heard his radio show and I haven't even seen him on SNL.  But don't be fooled by the title.  The contents of the book are not over the top.  The title of the book simply refers to a joke in the first few pages where god calls on Franken (Rush Limbaugh style) to write the book and recommends calling it "False Witness, and the Bearers of False Witness who Bear it" or something like that.  So Franken decided to change the language a bit to make it more appropriate for modern audiences.

[ChadTower]

And Chad, I have no experience with Al Franken aside from that book.

[ChadTower]

Hrm... a thought occurs...

Coulter is mentioned and was immediately slammed as a she-male and as ugly...

...why isn't anyone talking about how sexy Al Franken is?

[Goz]

Personal attacks and intollerance are what follows when the play book is questioned...

[ChadTower]

Ironically, that would make them part of the playbook.

[fredster]

Shmokes, Franken is a liberal radio talk show host on Air America.

[ChadTower]

Michael Moore has a better rack than Ann Coulter.

[shmokes]

Jesus, Fredster, he didn't change the title.  God didn't really call on him to write the book.  Him changing the title to something more appropriate for modern audiences is part of the joke. 

And no, you didn't read the book.  Telling me that the part of the title that says, "A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," is screwing with Fox shows that you have seen the title of the book.  It's quite clear, however, that you haven't ever opened the book and read it.
 

[shmokes]

To me, it is over the top, in that it is not quality content.  What I view it as is writing specifically for the people who already agree with you, ensuring that your target audience agrees with every word you say and laughs at every joke you make.  I didn't find it funny nor did I find it informative.

Now, I'm not saying that makes it bad.  It makes it exactly what it is:  a book for people who share his humor and ideals.  What is foolish, IMO, is trying to use anything written by Al Franken (or Coulter for that matter) in what could be a useful political discussion.

If you're saying you don't want to listen to anyone who is deliberately interjecting their own opinion, that's fine.  It's true that Franken is more a columnist than a journalist.  He is writing opinion pieces, not reporting news.  And that is what Moore and Couter do.  But they're not all the same, just as there are honest journalists with integrity and dishonest ones without.  The same goes for columnists, and the difference between Franken and Coulter (or Moore) is the verifiability of his claims.  He's honest, while the others aren't.

[ChadTower]

If you're saying you don't want to listen to anyone who is deliberately interjecting their own opinion, that's fine.

[shmokes]

Exactly what sets him apart.  Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are fully aware that what they are saying is ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---.  They say it anyway because they are in the business of furthering the agenda of the left and right, respectively, at any cost.  They both deliberately mislead their audiences into believing things that each of them know is being pulled completely out of context or is an outright lie.  The difference between Franken and Moore, from a conservative's point of view, is that

Franken is wrong, while Moore is a liar (and wrong).  It's not an insignificant difference.

[fredster]

 

Michael Moore has a better rack than Ann Coulter.

Maybe. But I bet moore just lays there.

Shmokes,
A "fair and balanced view of the right"? He came up with that for one reason, and one reason only. Fox sued over the issue didn't they? Come on man.

[ChadTower]

The same goes for columnists, and the difference between Franken and Coulter (or Moore) is the verifiability of his claims.

[shmokes]

Shmokes,
A "fair and balanced view of the right"? He came up with that for one reason, and one reason only. Fox sued over the issue didn't they? Come on man. 

Are you daft, man?  Who ever said that wasn't a jab at Fox?  Of course it's a jab at Fox.  The whole point of that line is taking a jab at Fox News.  WTF?  Why do you keep coming back to this point like some kind of "gotcha!"?  You're the one who brought that line up.  Are you just in a corner arguing with yourself?

As far as Geroge Bush using coke, Franken lays out all of the facts, all of the evidence that point to the VERY strong appearance of George Bush using coke.  He doesn't say that he did, as a matter of fact, use cocain.  He brings disparate data together, and quotes interviews, and gives relevant dates such as George Bush's age and the the FBI background check.  And it's pretty apparent that he did use coke back when he was a drunk, not that I particularly care.

[ChadTower]

As far as Geroge Bush using coke, Franken lays out all of the facts, all of the evidence that point to the VERY strong appearance of George Bush using coke.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Ironically, that would make them part of the playbook.

You guys are so good as rising above it all. I'd find it rather charming if I couldn't immediately point out the multitude of ways in which it's utter crap...but much like Chad, I just don't have the time.  (Boy this tactic is fun! No supporting evidence for specious claims.)


mrC

[fredster]

Shmokes,

[ChadTower]

From what I remember, Clinton's toking became a major issue.  Then again, maybe it was just because he tried to lie his way out of it rather than ignore it.   "I toked but didn't inhale..."  Even the left couldn't march behind that one it was so weaselly.

I don't so much feel need to defend Bush as I do just to stop the people who would destroy the Office from doing so.  I used to think Bush was only the lesser of two evils, but as it turns out, he is the lesser of two snickering, midnight bomber what bombs at midnight, new level of cartoonish evils.  He couldn't be worse if he were chasing Grape Ape around in a hot air balloon.  The problem is that the people who don't like his policy are so anxious to be rid of him that they would gladly destroy the Office of President in order to get him out... and IMO, that would do far more damage to the US' geopolitical security than even Bush himself could do between now and the end of his term.

There can't be only coincedence that these terrorist acts started to probe the outer limits of our defenses and tolerances while the US was otherwise occupied trying to figure out who Clinton nailed and when.  That whole thing undermined our global aura and emboldened those who would attack us into trying it... when they did it, and we chuckled with "oh, those crazy Muslims", they just kept doing it until they DID get our attention... but by then we were on to Bush, who was too incompetent to manage the precipitous recession to figure it all out and instead went all carpet bomber on us... and has only since made the entire world suffer the wrath of his stupidity.

The whole thing makes me reach for my antacid, only to pull my hand back to reach for my revolver, pulling my hand back again to grab nothing at all.

Damn that was long winded.

[fredster]

The whole thing makes me reach for my antacid, only to pull my hand back to reach for my revolver, pulling my hand back again to grab nothing at all.

It's Ok. Everything is gonna be alright....

[ChadTower]

I was happier about politics when I was 22 and completely ignorant of them.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I was happier about politics when I was 22 and completely ignorant of them.

See...now that's a statement I can agree with. We have a really beautiful political system, it's just completely full of a**holes. I wish I could just "unlearn" the things that I've learned about this country and it's leaders...but I'm not a "Blue Pill" type person, even to my own detriment.



mrC

[ChadTower]

I'd go further than that.  All political leaders are sh1theads.  All of them.  Federal, state, county, town, etc etc.  all of them, it's just a matter of how much power they have to abuse.

The things I have learned from politics that I wish I could unlearn are all about human nature.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Damn, I wouldn't go that far, you're even more jaded than me. Are you familiar with the political career of Paul Wellstone? He's not around anymore, unfortuntely, but he seemed like one of the good ones.

Anyhow, to walk around and just assume everyone is on the take is a little bit too unproductive, even for me. At some point, unless you are going to run for a political office yourself, you have to get behind someone to get things done.

In my view, there are far fewer "good", "decent", and centered people in the world (and by that, I don't just mean "people who agree with me") than there are vicious, greedy, petty, selfish people . That fact makes me fight that much harder against those who'd champion the worst in human nature, but it's also what makes me a Curmudgeon (at times).



mrC

[ChadTower]

There are plenty of good people.  Few, if any, of them end up in high political office.  The political process weeds out quality individuals by its very nature and only the slimiest (Clinton) or the easiest to manipulate while still placing into position (Bush) make it.

The process will not allow good, quality people to survive an election anymore.

[Dartful Dodger]

Ann Coulter is hot.

[ChadTower]

The more I think about the pair of Coulter and Franken, the more convinced I am that neither one of them cares much about the point of view they present. 

I'm coming to the conclusion that it's all mostly trumped up, hyperbolic garbage for the singular purpose of selling books.  It is really the most logical reason any person would spew such stupid crap from either side of the fence.

[fredster]

I agree with that. Everybody is selling a book.  Clark sold a book, that Joe guy and his wife Val are selling a book.  Both Clintons, their old campaign manager, etc.  Maples wrote one.  Cindy Shehan is writing one (?)

Everybody has a book.  Everybody wants the "truth" out there.

You turn on the TV and the news is always flavored one way or the other. Everybody has to put in their 2 cents. All I want to hear are the facts.  But the facts are constantly being mixed with "news analysis" by the commentator. 

And everybody has an ax to grind and an ass to cover.

[ChadTower]

Unfortunately, everyone is grinding their ax on someone else's ass cover.

[shmokes]

I thought Ann Coulter had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Joe McCarthy was right and all the people he procecuted were actual communists infiltrating the government in "How to Speak to a liberal - if you must".

You read that and Slander didn't you?  I mean, after all you do follow the classic patterns identified by Ann in about every one of your comments.

You have read Ann haven't you?

McCarthyism is a made up controversy by the liberals, after all.  So any referance to it is simply unnecessary....

All I want to hear are the facts.

Who is this guy?

And Fred, I see your confusion up above, thinking that I don't believe Coulter and Franken are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  It's cos I didn't quote your entire post that I was responding to and you read it as though I was taking that single line out of context. 

The crux of your post was that Franken and Coulter are merely disagreeing in their respective books, which is understandable considering they are at two opposite ends of the political spectrum. 

The point of my response is that this makes it obvious that you haven't read Franken's book, since it's not just two different philosophies or interpretations of facts.  Franken's chapters on Coulter detail specific examples of things Ann says that are clearly inaccurate, and many more that are intentionally misleading.

[shmokes]

For anyone completely unfamiliar with Ann Coulter here's a comical interview with Chris Matthews on Hardball:

http://www.therationalradical.com/matthews-coulter-transcript.htm

I would imagine that there are more flattering portayals of her, but I'm not really sure.  Even in this interview with the right-wing Front Page Magazine (where you can read her column) she comes across as batshit crazy:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11689

[Dartful Dodger]

Ann Coulter is hot.

[Zero_Hour]

Anybody here ever see the movie Network (1976)? It seems to have a real solid take on where our newsmedia is right now. In fact it could be argued that it is more relevant today then when it was being made 30 years ago.

If I ever list Franken or Coulter as a primary source of information about anything other than what they had for breakfast, I hope someone shoots me. And yes, I have read quite a bit of both their work.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Ann Coulter is hot.

Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Egads!  Look at that freakish neck! You'd need THREE hands to choke her! And those crinkley man-hands. It'd be like getting a massage from your grandfather!

I mean, I'd bang Michelle Malkin and turn her Liberal right quick, but Coulter is just physically repulsive. I wouldn't touch that rancid skeleton even if she promised me she'd crawl back into the grave she clawed her way out of.


mrC

[Dexter]

Please note the adams apple in the pic. I reckon she has to shave from it all the way down to her testicles

[Havok]

Ann Coulter is hot.

Never take her picture in b/w...

[fredster]

Shmokes, those were great Ann Interviews! I missed the one on Hardball. Wow she's funny.  I bet she looked good too.

I really liked the other one. She made some good points.  I'll have to read "treason".  I never picked that one up.

[ChadTower]

Did Mr C just use difficulty of choking as a criterium for the beauty of a woman?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Did Mr C just use difficulty of choking as a criterium for the beauty of a woman?

It's just one of many. Especially when it comes to judging the beauty of right-wing windbags.


mrC

[fredster]

Be honest Mr.C, You want her don't you?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Be honest Mr.C, You want her don't you?

Right. Just the sight of her (let alone the grating sound of her "Lilith Crane" voice) shrivels me up worse than a long day at a cold-water spring.

You can have her, I'm glad she's on *your* side. Even though she's still an embarrassment to humanity in general.


mrC

[Grasshopper]

Well there's no accounting for taste. But personally she reminds me of one of those aliens from Star Wars who built the clone army.

[Stingray]

I don't even know who she is, apart from ugly.

-S

[ChadTower]

She is Moff Tarkin.

[Stingray]

In which case, I'll try to make sure she's inside the next Death Star when it explodes.

-S

[ChadTower]

In a way, you have determined the choice of the party that'll be destroyed first. Since you are reluctant to provide us with the location of the Democrat campaign headquarters, I have chosen to test this station's destructive power... on your home party of Democrats.

[Stingray]

Governor Coulter, I should have know it was you holding Bush's leash. I recognised your foul stench when I was brought on board.

-S

[Bones]

Ann Coulter looks like a robbers dog.

[Dexter]

Especially if you draw a face on that robbers dogs butt and train it to walk backwards

[Goz]

Coulter Cheesecake?

[Stingray]

I hope this thread is officially derailed. I'm sick of it.

-S

[Goz]

I hope this thread is officially derailed. I'm sick of it.

-S

I'm trying... 

[Stingray]

This thread makes Nanotina Turner cry.

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Hey fredster....tell Ann, "There's hope!"





mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Coulter Cheesecake?

Coulter Photoshop.


EDIT: I found the original (unedited) photo.

[ChadTower]

Erf.  Grunt.

Message - irrelevant.

Messenger - bad.  Hate.  Attack.

erf.  Scratch.

[Stingray]

Erf.  Grunt.

Message - irrelevant.

Messenger - bad.  Hate.  Attack.

erf.  Scratch.

Could be time to up Chad's meds.

-S

[ChadTower]

No, they finally kicked in.

That was a political post hacked down to the exact message.

[shmokes]

Her boobs are still obviously photoshopped.

[ChadTower]

Faked fake boobs?

Don't two negatives make a positive?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Erf.

[ChadTower]

Shows what you know.  They stopped counting EE posts long ago.

This is post nine-thousand five-hundred and thirty-nine for at least the 200th time.

[Dexter]

"How to make friends and influence people" by Ann the man coulter....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CT_COULTER_PROTEST_CTOL-?SITE=VARIT&SECTION=US&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-12-07-22-29-42

[fredster]

Funny how a small group will cause someone not to speak huh?  What are they really protesting? A different viewpoint?

Ann has some extreme views to be sure, but she can cause people to think about issues from a different perspective. Is that so bad they have to shout her down and not let her make these points?

Can't they just stay home?  What's up with that?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Ann has some extreme views to be sure, but she can cause people to think about issues from a different perspective. Is that so bad they have to shout her down and not let her make these points?

Ann Coulter does NOTHING to generate positive, constructive debate. She's a hate-monger, a fabricator, and a vicious extremists. There isn't one redeeming characteristic in anything she has ever had to say. She shouldn't *have* to be shouted down, because she should never be given invites to speak in the first place. The fact that she is even allow on news programs (at all) speaks volumes about the myth of the "so-called" Liberal media. You should be embarrased about some of the things she says, but instead you'd hold her up as an paragon of Conservative thought. My mind boggles. She seriously isn't doing your side any favors, and I'd wager she's doing more than any single commentator out there to drive moderate and responsible Republicans away. She's a shrill banshee who has nothing constructive to say, and instead, chooses to whine about "Liberals this" and "Liberals that" with her every fetid breath. Where are her grand ideas, or proposed solutions for ANYTHING? How does she push the conservative agenda forward at all?

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with someone expressing a thoughtful, moderated opposing view. I like Lou Dobbs, I'll listen to Tucker Carlson (who is a bit unbearable at times), Buchanan is crazy, but at least he doesn't just make things up like Coulter.

Coulter is a crazy attention-whore who couldn't reason her way out of a paper-bag. She's a proven liar, a lazy writer, and a shameless extremist. Pick another idol, fredster.




mrC

[ChadTower]

One or two channels let her on to speak and it is indicative of everyone else in the media?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

One or two channels let her on to speak and it is indicative of everyone else in the media?

She has found her way on to more than FOX and friends. Outside that she has opened the gates for a particular type of venomous discourse that was, up until this latest wave of extremists commentators (Rush, Hannity, Savage, Coulter, Severin), seemingly frowned upoun in civil society. It may have existed behind closed doors, but to cultivate it and justify it as Coulter has is just unforgiveable.

I shouldn't have isolated "news programs" alone as sole representative of the "Media", since she and her ilk have published books, traveled the lecture circuit, spoken on radio, etc. It's hate-speech and nothing more, and to diseminate it in any form is an invite to all the worst in human nature.

She's not representative of what I think of when I think of the "Right", but more and more, as people like fredster continue to champion her views...I fear we're losing that robust competition of ideals and replacing it with something much more sinister.

mrC

[ChadTower]

I lost faith in whatever you were trying to say when you started using phrases like "behind closed doors", "sinister", and implying that the conservative agenda is "frowned upoun in civil society".

Can't deal with the amount of haughty judgement there.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I lost faith in whatever you were trying to say when you started using phrases like "behind closed doors", "sinister", and implying that the conservative agenda is "frowned upoun in civil society".

Can't deal with the amount of haughty judgement there.

Whatever. You've lost faith in just about everything, and completely believe you're so above it all.

Talk about haughty.



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I lost faith in whatever you were trying to say when you started using phrases like "behind closed doors", "sinister", and implying that the conservative agenda is "frowned upoun in civil society".

So Ann's agenda really is "the conservative agenda"?


mrC

[ChadTower]

No, not really, but that's what she says it is... probably a bad term on my part.

She's a complete nutter, I agree, but also think you would do better to address her content than her appearance.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

She's a complete nutter, I agree, but also think you would do better to address her content than her appearance.

But there is no "content" worth addressing. Coulter deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule. She should be laughed off every stage she attempts to defile, then, after that, she should be completely ignored. I choose to have fun at her expense because I feel comfortable in knowing I will never have to regret it because she will never be anything other than a "nutter."

To address her "content" is to validate it. She isn't a "conservative", and she doesn't adequately represent a conservative agenda. She's been so thoroughly debunked that it's now beyond repetative. With Coulter, it's just best to use her own methods against her, which certainly leaves her physical appearance open for ridicule as she engages in a great deal of "Conservatives are better looking" etc, etc...

I mean, look at her...that's just not true! Another fabrication!   



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

But if it makes you feel any better, I've just about reached my limit of talking about Coulter...I can only deal with acknowledging her existence for so long before I start losing all hope for humanity.


mrC

[ChadTower]

To address her "content" is to validate it.

To refuse to validate her point of view, by ignoring it, is to dismiss it as beneath consideration.  That's pretty much the definition of considering oneself above something.  Sure, she sucks, but she has the right to say whatever she wants.  I don't agree with much of it either but it is out there and apparently some people heed those ideas as valid.

Now, of course, we don't have to spend more than a minute or two discussing it, and since we already have, let's move on to something more positive.  I suggest beer.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Now, of course, we don't have to spend more than a minute or two discussing it, and since we already have, let's move on to something more positive.  I suggest beer.

Beer is a worthy topic. Too painful to discuss while I'm at work though. Have to wait...


mrC

[ChadTower]

I'm on a self imposed alcohol ban right now anyway.

[Dartful Dodger]

Ann Coulter is hot.

[ChadTower]

Tell her to turn down the thermostat.  She must be wasting precious home heating fuel.

[fredster]

Ann Coulter does NOTHING to generate positive, constructive debate. She's a hate-monger, a fabricator, and a vicious extremists. There isn't one redeeming characteristic in anything she has ever had to say.

Only from your point of view Mr.C.

She has a lot to say.  She makes some good points about the liberal thinking and conservative thinking. She does it with all the grace and charm of a brain surgeon with a chainsaw, but she does add to the discussion. 

Sort of like Howard Dean and the dems. Or Franken.

The "hate mongering" is one way of highlighting an issue. It's all in how it's framed.  I'm not by far endorsing everything she says, but I'm neutral on lots of it.  I honestly can't think of something she said that utterly offended me though.

(I'm sure you'll fill in the blanks there)....
 

[ChadTower]

I don't think Franken is a good analog for Coulter... maybe for someone a little less harsh. 


Now, Dean, Dean may be a perfect analog.  Dude was a presidential shoo in manufactured by the media... the first hour of actual voting exposed his potential as a complete farce when the voters burned his chances and pissed on the ashes.

Then his Coulter-like tantrums exposed him to the rest of America.

[Zero_Hour]

The Pundits of this world actually do very little to further the discussion. They just decrease signal and increase noise. Ultimately they come off as shrill 'preaching to the converted' cheerleaders for the left and right. Sadly, rational discussions are rarely obtainable, unless the point of the discussion is to point out the numerous inaccuracies, ommissions, oversimplifications or flat out lies that they bring forth in the course of their writings / appearances. It is easy to forgive an occasional gaffe, but the consistancy of these errors ultimately devalues their body of work as a whole.

I'll take boring people that understand the value of fact checking over any of the windbags they put on TV these days. Find me someone who doesn't have a publishing/film/tv/radio career to promote when it comes time to discuss serious issues. Find me someone who can have a conversation with the opposing side without having to raise their voice or toss insults at them. Are there any left?

[DrewKaree]

Find me someone who can have a conversation with the opposing side without having to raise their voice or toss insults at them. Are there any left?

There's MrC and tha.....crap, talk about bad timing

[mr.Curmudgeon]

She has a lot to say.  She makes some good points about the liberal thinking and conservative thinking.

You have yet to address the reality that she takes things severly out of context, twists and contorts history and flat-out lies a great deal of the time. So invalidates anything she has to say by being completely devoid of facts. This isn't me, or "the left" talking, she has been debunked by so many researchers and historians, isn't not worth my time debating.

Sort of like Howard Dean and the dems. Or Franken.

Well, so far Dean has been right in all his predictions about the war in Iraq (he predicted cost, high casualties, insurgency, etc), and he was the only one with balls to call it like it was, loooooong before anyone dared decent. Furthermore, as far as I know - unless you can point me to some unbiased evidence - he hasn't lied or contorted facts to fit his agenda. He calls it like he sees it, and he's been honest. Nothing like Coulter. You can dislike what he has to say, but he deserves a hell of a lot more respect than someone who doesn't even care enough to be honest.


mrC

[Dartful Dodger]

Well, so far Dean has been right in all his predictions about the war in Iraq (he predicted cost, high casualties, insurgency, etc), and he was the only one with balls to call it like it was, loooooong before anyone dared decent.

You want us to be impressed that he predicted cost, high casualties, insurgency in a war with Iraq.    Those of us with a memory knew that would happen, you just need to look at what happened in the past.

If we didn't go against the UN to go to war with Iraq we wouldn't have scared the crap out of Iran and the other countries willing to fund Bin Laden.  I would have predicted a plane flying into the Sears Tower, and there would have been cost and high casualties with that too.

Luckily over half of us don't see examining the past to predict the future as a mystical power.  In fact we remeber the past so 3000+ more people didn't have to die.

BUSH WON!!!

ANN COULTER IS HOT!!!

[shmokes]

Aren't we over 2000 dead soldiers and about 25000 Iraqi civilian casualties at this point?

[DrewKaree]

Aren't we over 2000 dead soldiers and about 25000 Iraqi civilian casualties at this point?

...and outside of Detroit's city limits, I heard it's even higher!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

...and outside of Detroit's city limits, I heard it's even higher!

Yum! More of that tasteful conservative humor! Gotta' love it. If pictures of mutilated civilians don't get you rigid, why not try pissing on the warm graves of a few dead soldiers, huh? Charming.

Who is more irrational, he who believes in a God he does not
see, or he who is offended by a God he does not believe in?

Just noticed your footer, it's not as clever as you'd like it to be since it's based on a faulty assumption to begin with. Someone like myself doesn't have a problem with the notion of God, per se. I certainly not offended by it. It's his followers I can't stand.



mrC

[DrewKaree]

Yum! More of that tasteful conservative humor! Gotta' love it. If pictures of mutilated civilians don't get you rigid, why not try pissing on the warm graves of a few dead soldiers, huh? Charming.

Cards, anyone?

Just noticed your footer, it's not as clever as you'd like it to be since it's based on a faulty assumption to begin with. Someone like myself doesn't have a problem with the notion of God, per se. I certainly not offended by it. It's his followers I can't stand.

The art of hyperbole is still alive and well in Lowell, MA!  I'm sure you being the kind and tolerant "let's hold hands and save the world" guy you are couldn't possibly have met every follower of God, let alone spent enough time with them to form your "Cantstandya" view.  But why bother with considering it when broad generalizations you can't possibly know to be true work equally well to foster this "togetherness" you've claimed our leaders should be working to achieve.  I know, I know, do as you say, not as you do.

Have a day.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Cards, anyone?

No, seriously Drew. Explain your comment to me, 'cuz maybe I just don't understand it. Maybe I read it wrong (as it turned my stomach something fierce)...because from where I'm standing it sure sounding like a flippant disregard for all the death that has taken place in Iraq and whether one agrees with the apparent "Pax Americana", the "spreading freedom meme" or the "No War for Oil" slogans...death is death and I don't think I'll ever be cynical enough to understand comments like yours at first blush. Help me understand what you were going for?

If I misunderstood it, I'll correct myself...if not, then, well...

mrC

[Bones]

I have never even heard of any of these people. I shouldn't even be reading it.

I don't belong here.

[jbox]

Find me someone who can have a conversation with the opposing side without having to raise their voice or toss insults at them. Are there any left?

Anyone see the Crossfire episode where John Stewart came on and told them they were "hurting America"? Sounded like it raised both of their hackles. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You want us to be impressed that he predicted cost, high casualties, insurgency in a war with Iraq.    Those of us with a memory knew that would happen, you just need to look at what happened in the past.

Dartful,

You truly are dumber than a box of rocks, boy. The very architects of the war, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney....all of them predicted the very opposite of what you've listed above. NO ONE on your side predicted an insurgency before we entered. In fact, they said we'd be greeted with flowers and candy. Wolfowitz disbanded the Iraqi Army, which become the core of the insurgency, and once the looting started in Baghdad he hadn't a clue what to do. Cheney and Rumsfeld REFUSED to acknowledge military commanders requests for a larger invasion force, even going so far as to force "retirement" on Gen. Sinseki when he asked for more troops. They said "the upper range of $95 billion was too high" for cost estimates of the war (we're at +350 BILLION, with 50+ in supplementals waiting and another +100 billion in the pipeline for next year)

THEY WERE WRONG....on all accounts. Just as you are. God, no wonder you speak in monosyllabic fits...you haven't got a single neuron in that gord of yours.

If we didn't go against the UN to go to war with Iraq we wouldn't have scared the crap out of Iran and the other countries willing to fund Bin Laden.

Yup, we really scared the crap out of them didn't we! Iran is planning on building another nuclear reactor. Russia just sold them a hefty bunch of anti-aircraft batteries, and their leader just called for Israel to be moved to Europe! Boy they're quacking in their boots! My bet is that they're excited about the enormous land opportunities Bush opened up from them in Iraq. We did get rid of their biggest enemy, by the way.


This will hopefully be the last time I feel the need to address you, since it's such a pathetic waste of time.

mrC

[ChadTower]

You truly are dumber than a box of rocks, boy. The very architects of the war, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney....all of them predicted the very opposite of what you've listed above.

Publicly.  All of them publicly predicted those things.  Differentiate between what is said into a microphone and what would be common sense to anyone over the age of 15.

No one with half a brain actually believed those things that were said could ever happen.  I still can't figure out why they bothered to say them.  It rang of a used car sale, that's for sure.

[markrvp]

This is a PERFECT example of your generally arrogant and egotistical nature (I call it like I see it, and I think you've agreed with my on this point before)...

Down south we would term that, "the pot calling the kettle black."

[ChadTower]

Except, with all the sense it makes, it is more like the pot calling the kettle sticky green.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

No one with half a brain actually believed those things that were said could ever happen.  I still can't figure out why they bothered to say them.

You give the American public all the leeway in the world when doing so supports you're argument, and none when it doesn't.

This administration said those things because they knew it would work. They needed a majority of the American public to support the war, so they played up a bunch of false "happy happy" pretenses. People still think Saddam was linked to 9/11 for Christsakes! Most of them FOX viewers (not suprisingly).

If they would have truthfully outlined all the potentialites we're seeing now, we wouldn't be in Iraq right now. You KNOW that. You can't see past your own defense of this administration. On one hand you want everyone to believe you're all critical, then you say things like:

ChadTower on December 01, 2005, 03:53:07 PM

Most of the reason I defend him, when I do, is because I get sick of all of the one note idiots out there screaming "BUSH BAD BUSH BAD".

There's no merit in that, none. It makes no sense. So when you say, "I still can't figure out why they bothered to say them"...your above mindset is EXACTLY why you can't figure it out!

mrC

[ChadTower]

They needed a majority of the American public to support the war, so they played up a bunch of false "happy happy" pretenses.

They didn't need anything from the public.  They needed the support of the US Senators.  They could have gone to war if no one in the general public wanted it if the Senators were willing to approve it.

If members of the general public are so ignorant that they still think Saddam was behind 9/11, it is pretty much their own fault.  The gov't can't make people read a webpage or the internet or the instructions on a condom wrapper.

[shmokes]

Publicly.  All of them publicly predicted those things.  Differentiate between what is said into a microphone and what would be common sense to anyone over the age of 15.

No one with half a brain actually believed those things that were said could ever happen.  I still can't figure out why they bothered to say them.  It rang of a used car sale, that's for sure.

That's a load of ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---.  They believed every word of it, as evidenced by the tiny force they sent to Iraq.  Actions speak louder than words, and in the case of the Iraq war the actions of the Administration make it clear that they believed exactly what they said.  Anybody with half a brain can see that the insurgency was, in fact, not planned for and completely caught the Bush administration with their pants down.  They're an arrogant bunch, and it shows. 

[ChadTower]

That's a load of ---smurf-poop---.

[Zero_Hour]

Find me someone who can have a conversation with the opposing side without having to raise their voice or toss insults at them. Are there any left?

Anyone see the Crossfire episode where John Stewart came on and told them they were "hurting America"? Sounded like it raised both of their hackles. 

I did see that. It was one of the last good things I've seen run on a "News" channel. I think the reason that the hosts were so taken aback is because Stewart was there obstensibly to promote a Book. When he decided to take advantage of the situation by explaining why Crossfire was such a complete P.O.S. - i.e. the lack of actual debate - they trully had no defense. What cracked me up the most was that the "News" channel boys were trying to spin The Daily Show in the same light as themselves. That was the equivalent of comparing apples and prawns. I was not the least bit surprised when Crossfire was cancelled not long after that particular broadcast.

Of course if CNN is ever interested in getting some fresh faces for the same old song and dance, they could do a lot worse than recruit from these very boards.

[ChadTower]

Jon Stewart was more effective when he was just making fun of the news and politics.  Now he thinks he is important, that he IS a story, and has become exactly what he started out caricaturing.

[markrvp]

Jon Stewart was more effective when he was just making fun of the news and politics.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Jon Stewart was more effective when he was just making fun of the news and politics.  Now he thinks he is important, that he IS a story, and has become exactly what he started out caricaturing.

How so? I don't see him overshadowing anything. I think he *is* a huge draw for the show though. People like him, and he's got great timing. Some of the funniest skits I've seen on there have been ones created within the past few months. The gas gouge/Humvee spoof, the Porn Demographic report...those are classic!


Colbert, on the other hand, seems to have gotten full of himself, but it fits with the character he's got going - so it may work for him. "The Report" is funny from time to time, but it still needs to find it's legs. The O'Reilly spoof can only last for so long.


mrC

[ChadTower]

How so? I don't see him overshadowing anything. I think he *is* a huge draw for the show though. People like him, and he's got great timing. Some of the funniest skits I've seen on there have been ones created within the past few months. The gas gouge/Humvee spoof, the Porn Demographic report...those are classic!

I didn't say he was overshadowing anything.  I said he thinks he IS a politician and a story now.  Going on Crossfire is a perfect example.  Why should a simple spoof comedian be on Crossfire?  He went in there thinking he was important, someone who belongs making the political show rounds, and tried to upstage their show.  That is the exactly the type of thing he would have made fun of when he first got there.

[Zero_Hour]

He was invited on Crossfire to promote a book. If you watch the whole piece they even begin to talk about said book. The discussion turned, and Stewart ran with it, taking the opportunity to point out what many people believe to be real flaws with the manner in which "debate" is conducted in the media these days. He did not try to upstage the show, he in fact DID upstage the show. Though I do not believe it was premeditated, it is possible it was. If that's the case then Stewart is smarter than any of folks working at CNN.

And why can't a comedian be on Crossfire? I would think a man who makes his money observing politics for a living as a smart choice for a guest.

[DrewKaree]

And why can't a comedian be on Crossfire? I would think a man who makes his money observing politics for a living as a smart choice for a guest.

Lewis Black woulda been a better choice.

[ChadTower]

He was invited on Crossfire to promote a book.

The Book - Step 1 in becoming self important.
The Appearances - Step 2
The Being Unruly and Getting His Appearance Mentioned On Other Shows - Step 3

They all follow that procedure.

[Scott84]

It can also be pronounced re

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I said he thinks he IS a politician and a story now.

Oh no...actor who thinks he's a politician! It's not like that hasn't happened before *cough* Reagan *cough* Schwarzenegger *cough*

What's your point? He can't do both? Be funny *and* pretend to be a politician?

That is the exactly the type of thing he would have made fun of when he first got there.

If someone had the balls to go on CNN and ask them why they aren't doing their jobs as objective journalists, I'm sure he wouldn't have made fun of that.


mrC

[ChadTower]

What's your point? He can't do both? Be funny *and* pretend to be a politician?

Apparently not, since when he decided to be a politician he seemingly lost the ability to be funny.  Self consciousness and premeditation tend to do that to a comedian.

If someone had the balls to go on CNN and ask them why they aren't doing their jobs as objective journalists, I'm sure he wouldn't have made fun of that.

Objective journalism is dead and is not the job of anyone on CNN.

[Zero_Hour]

He was invited on Crossfire to promote a book.

The Book - Step 1 in becoming self important.
The Appearances - Step 2
The Being Unruly and Getting His Appearance Mentioned On Other Shows - Step 3

They all follow that procedure.

1. The Book was written by the staff (and others I assume) from the Daily Show - it was not "His" Book.

2. Has not nearly as much to do with Self Importance as it does marketing.

3. Did you watch the show? His behavior can hardly be considered unruly especially compared with many other guests I've seen on Crossfire in the past.

As for having it on other shows? I've heard and seen it on the net far more than I saw any sustained covereage of it on television. Various Media oriented sites, as well as numerous personal and political blogs.

If Stewart feels self important, it might be more likely due to the nice fat contract he got the last time The Daily Show was renewed, as opposed to the Crossfire appearance. Crossfires' ratings  were such, that no guest should have ever felt self important for being invited.

And what office is He currently running for? Until he actually throws his hat in the ring for something, the Politician label just doesnt hold true.

If you don't like his comedy, that's fine by me, but I don't see where he is doing anything differently now than when he first sat down at that desk. Political Humor is most often driven by the Parties and Persons in power. I'm sure that The Daily Show would love to throw some Clinton jokes in there, but they would feel a little stale right about now, don't you think?

[ChadTower]

And what office is He currently running for? Until he actually throws his hat in the ring for something, the Politician label just doesnt hold true.

Politician.

Politicians are not limited to elected offices.

[Zero_Hour]

I suspect we will disagree on this, but I personally feel he does not fit any of those definitions.

[jbox]

One who seeks personal or partisan gain

So who, aside from Monks, is *not* a politician?