Unpatriotic

[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.