Unpatriotic

[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.