Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ann Coulter (Is she hateful?)
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 196 of 274 (679611)
11-14-2012 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
11-14-2012 4:22 PM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
This is all I read of your post for now. Ann Coulter did NOT say she wishes McVeigh had KILLED PEOPLE ...
Yes she did. If you're going to claim that she didn't mean it literally, you may do so. But don't deny what she said, that's just lying.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 11-14-2012 4:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 197 of 274 (679612)
11-14-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Faith
11-14-2012 4:37 PM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
OK now I have to prove to you literalists that editors and reporters are also symbols of liberal influence and not people she wishes to hurt.
You are lying to us about what we're arguing about.
How do you think that's going to work out for you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 11-14-2012 4:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 198 of 274 (679630)
11-14-2012 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
11-14-2012 11:38 AM


Re: scale and location
RAZD writes:
So where are you on the scale that you see it as liberal?
Look at it this way. Break the country up into percentiles with the 10 % who hold the most liberal values at 1 and the 10 % with the most conservative value at 10. I am probably at 8 very religious conservatives above me and ayn rand types economically above me as well. All Universities are either 1 or 2 except for the rare ones like liberty university and hillsdale college. The fact that fordham is religious doesn't make it conservative except on perhaps a few points like abortion and marriage. I wouldn't be surprised if fordham supports choice and gay marriage or believes the government should have no say in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2012 11:38 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2012 4:21 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 199 of 274 (679644)
11-15-2012 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by crashfrog
11-14-2012 4:28 PM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
OK, Crash, I'm going to respond to your list of Coulterisms way back there that I left for later, though I'm not going to go track down the original post.
I've said my piece, I've made my case, everyone remains glued to their same position, and I've been called ignorant and a liar a few too many times for easy tolerance so I'm answering this and leaving the thread.
I saved your list of quotes and here they are.
The first thing to say is that if I took her literally as you guys do I'd probably be censuring her too, but I don't, so what you're going to get here is the reading of someone who is not literalminded as the rest are.
In contemplating college liberals, you really regret, once again, that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out into outright traitors.
John Walker Lindh, I believe, who went and fought with the Muslims against Americans, right? What is your objection to this quote? We shouldn't execute traitors? They used to, you know. I don't know if he killed anyone but he was at least complicit in any killing of Americans by those he fought with and should have been dealt with as a murderer himself. I'm for the death penalty and think keeping murderers in prison instead is a betrayal of the innocent victims, abd in this case a betrayal of the whole nation. Executing murderers is definitely a deterrent to other would-be murderers, and that's what she's saying here. Yes, she's accusing "college liberals" of being incipient traitors. Most conservatives see it that way and I'm one of them, so as usual she is making a shocking comparison in order to dramatize her point. We need a deterrent to those who already talk traitorously as a deterrent against their turning into actual traitors. I agree with her.
I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote.
I've often thought this myself, at least the literacy test part, though I admit I haven't thought it through thoroughly and could change my mind. This of course comes from hearing the absolutely idiotic opinions of so many who vote, who know absolutely nothing about American history or world history or current events. It's discouraging to know people are voting against you for all the wrong reasons. Don't you agree?
But this is all academic since so much of the vote is rigged anywayl.
God says, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours."
This is a case where she went way over the line. God said no such thing, He charged us to care for the Creation. But it's easy enough to guess what led her to this misstatement. She's objecting to the environmentalist extremists who seem to care more for the spotted owl than for human wellbeing. People who love animals and trees so much they'd throw people out on the street if it came to that choice. That IS how they often sound.
And they talk that way in tones of high dudgeon. Liberals seem to ALWAYS be talking in tones of high dudgeon, huffy moral indignation, shrill tones of denunciation as if they were the arbiters of all that is good and right and anyone who disagrees is, well, merely a "hater" or a "reactionary." Yes, they sound like a bunch of Victorian matrons passing judgment on some offense to their moral sense. Things of little real importance, in fact things that are CONTRARY in many cases to what's important and right. No sense of proportion, no sense of looking for compromise or respecting the views of the opposition, just total condemnation.
I'd agree that the Right then goes over the top too, as in this statement by Ann and in some things Rush Limbaugh has said along the same lines that suggest we can just destroy the environment without thought. But at bottom the point they are making is about whether human wellbeing is to be compromised by extreme notions about how the Creation is to be protected. It's another case where we're polarized but we shouldn't be. We should be able to take care of ourselves AND serve the Creation.
If we take away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat President.
Now here is where I think Ann is Doing Her Thing to perfection. I found this really funny because it's so true and I've thought the same myself and then had to try to push it out of my head.
Apparently you have to go to rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't talk about Edwards.
Bad taste I'd say. But she's insisting on her right to violate the canons of Political Correctness by using the term "faggot" risking being put in the prison of rehab for it. Well, we choose the hills we're willing to die on. If you miss the joke you're a liberal. I'm not in favor of talking this way myself, and it's one of the reasons I don't listen to her much. But I can appreciate the point she's trying to make. Is that John Edwards she's talking about? She's saying he's effeminate? Well, he is sort of.
These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.
I'm going out of my way to defend her because I hate the way she's taken by liberals and I see what she's trying to do. She's trying to face down Political Correctness which is the basis for all that misguided moral indignation the liberals keep condemning us by, which is nothing but their own political agenda. I never saw the widows talk about these things but I would guess that I might have seen their general demeanor as Ann did, as more interested in their rights than in the gravity of the situation and even their own loss. I might have, I don't know, but I usually find her insightful about such things.
That last was about the widows of a number of 9/11 heroes. I dunno. Maybe you think all of that is just rabble-rousing and bomb-tossing. But I've never seen Ann Coulter talk about people like that to their faces, with them in the room, and if you'll pardon the language I don't think it takes much in the way of balls to slag someone where they won't have the opportunity to respond.
That's silly, they've got plenty of people to defend them, apparently the whole anti-Coulter crowd for starters. And of cousre she wouldn't talk to them to ther faces this way because she's targeting an attitude, not people, their indoctrination into the entitlement view of life. She's NOT doing anything like what is being ijmnputed to here that imnplies it's the same as verbally abusing people to their face. But you guys will never get it and I'm out of here.
See you on the DNA thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by crashfrog, posted 11-14-2012 4:28 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by PaulK, posted 11-15-2012 1:39 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 11-15-2012 10:47 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 205 by fearandloathing, posted 11-15-2012 11:08 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 206 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-15-2012 12:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 207 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2012 1:14 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(6)
Message 200 of 274 (679649)
11-15-2012 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
11-15-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
I'm going to take just the two worst here.
quote:
In contemplating college liberals, you really regret, once again, that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too. Otherwise they will turn out into outright traitors.
John Walker Lindh, I believe, who went and fought with the Muslims against Americans, right? What is your objection to this quote? We shouldn't execute traitors? They used to, you know. I don't know if he killed anyone but he was at least complicit in any killing of Americans by those he fought with and should have been dealt with as a murderer himself. I'm for the death penalty and think keeping murderers in prison instead is a betrayal of the innocent victims, abd in this case a betrayal of the whole nation. Executing murderers is definitely a deterrent to other would-be murderers, and that's what she's saying here. Yes, she's accusing "college liberals" of being incipient traitors. Most conservatives see it that way and I'm one of them, so as usual she is making a shocking comparison in order to dramatize her point. We need a deterrent to those who already talk traitorously as a deterrent against their turning into actual traitors. I agree with her.
In other words you don't care about the hateful lies because you share her prejudices. Not exactly a defence of Coulter, more an admission of guilt.
quote:
These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.
I'm going out of my way to defend her because I hate the way she's taken by liberals and I see what she's trying to do. She's trying to face down Political Correctness which is the basis for all that misguided moral indignation the liberals keep condemning us by, which is nothing but their own political agenda. I never saw the widows talk about these things but I would guess that I might have seen their general demeanor as Ann did, as more interested in their rights than in the gravity of the situation and even their own loss. I might have, I don't know, but I usually find her insightful about such things.
I think we can dismiss the idea that the widows should be more concerned about the world situation than their personal tragedies as another example of Coulter's callousness. But even so, to accuse the widows of being HAPPY that their husbands had died ? That goes beyond callous. And...all you say about it is to suggest that she is probably right ?
So to sum up what Coulter is doing is quite clear:
Her main intent is to destroy the political opposition by spreading lies and hate, and we can see that she puts political point-scoring above everything else, not even neglecting the victims of tragedy but encouraging others to neglect them too.
I think that these are quite sufficient to qualify her as "hateful".
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 201 of 274 (679668)
11-15-2012 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung
11-11-2012 7:36 PM


foreveryoung writes:
and they call obama a conservative????
Well some people on EVC are from Europe and Obama would be classed as a conservative in many European countries, or if not a conservative he would be a good deal to the right.
I don't mean this is a comment on American politics, just an explanation of the cultural crossing of wires with the way we use words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 7:36 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 202 of 274 (679673)
11-15-2012 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung
11-11-2012 7:36 PM


and they call obama a conservative????
Well yes. I missed this one.
Yes, apart from his belated support for gay marriage and the abolition of DADT, Obama is exactly a conservative from 50 years ago. Back in the good old days.
But right-wing rhetoric has shifted so far that Eisenhower and Nixon and Ford and Reagan would nowadays be considered Evil Communist Marxists Who Want To Destroy America if they stood on their policies today. Obama continues their tradition, but you are so far right that you can't appreciate that from a historical perspective America has just re-elected a moderate Republican.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by foreveryoung, posted 11-11-2012 7:36 PM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Theodoric, posted 11-15-2012 8:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 242 by xongsmith, posted 11-16-2012 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 203 of 274 (679678)
11-15-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Dr Adequate
11-15-2012 7:34 AM


Obama is not a socialist
You are correct doc.
Obama is not a socialist or even a liberal. He is a to the right centrist on the US political spectrum.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 7:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 204 of 274 (679702)
11-15-2012 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
11-15-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
But this is all academic since so much of the vote is rigged anywayl.
Seriously? Rigged?
I've often thought this myself, at least the literacy test part,
You are doubtless aware that we did once have literacy tests, and of how well that worked out?
This is a case where she went way over the line. God said no such thing, He charged us to care for the Creation. But it's easy enough to guess what led her to this misstatement. She's objecting to the environmentalist extremists who seem to care more for the spotted owl than for human wellbeing
So Coulter went over the line, but you give her a pass by pointing out that some people are extremists.
I would suggest that going over the line is a general practice of Coulter's. I don't have a huge problem with that. She is, after all, trying to sell books by being humorous. What does not seem to make much since is assuming that a liberal who uses the exact same language as Coulter has a completely different motive than humor.
The only way in which describing a specific scenario for blowing up the NYT is different from describing some vague scenario in which Fox News gets blown up is that some particular listener finds empath/humor in what one and not in the other.
Yes, she's accusing "college liberals" of being incipient traitors. Most conservatives see it that way and I'm one of them
You've essentially admitted here that you find Coulterisms okay because you are a conservative. That's my point too.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


(2)
Message 205 of 274 (679704)
11-15-2012 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
11-15-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
This statement caught my eye.
It's discouraging to know people are voting against you for all the wrong reasons. Don't you agree?
Makes me think of the ignorance of the voters in WV who would have rather had a federal prisoner as president, 42% of them. 52,000 people cast a ballot in the primary for somebody most of them probably knew nothing about.
I could care less about AC, she ranks up there with Alex Jones in my opinion. Crazy like a fox, willing to say what it takes to keep the money rolling in.
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'
― Isaac Asimov
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(7)
Message 206 of 274 (679719)
11-15-2012 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
11-15-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
faith writes:
And they talk that way in tones of high dudgeon. Liberals seem to ALWAYS be talking in tones of high dudgeon, huffy moral indignation, shrill tones of denunciation as if they were the arbiters of all that is good and right and anyone who disagrees is, well, merely a "hater" or a "reactionary." Yes, they sound like a bunch of Victorian matrons passing judgment on some offense to their moral sense. Things of little real importance, in fact things that are CONTRARY in many cases to what's important and right. No sense of proportion, no sense of looking for compromise or respecting the views of the opposition, just total condemnation.
Wow! So you are the arbiter of what is good and right and anyone who disagrees with you.......
No sense of proportion, no sense of looking for compromise or respecting the views of the opposition, just total condemnation.
I guess you don't see the irony of your statements.
I'm going out of my way to defend her because I hate the way she's taken by liberals and I see what she's trying to do. She's trying to face down Political Correctness which is the basis for all that misguided moral indignation the liberals keep condemning us by, which is nothing but their own political agenda.
You seem to be expressing a lot of "misguided moral indignation" yourself, condemning anyone who disagrees with you for your own political agenda.
And just to be clear, Ann Coulter clearly said she wished Timothy McVeigh had killed the people she hates instead of the people he did kill. She approves of what he did, just not his target.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(5)
Message 207 of 274 (679725)
11-15-2012 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
11-15-2012 12:59 AM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
What is your objection to this quote?
That liberals should be subject to physical intimidation for being liberals.
You've mentioned that you don't take Coulter literally, but how do you square that here? How do you metaphorically physically intimidate someone? The phrase "physically intimidate", as near as I can tell, pretty incontrovertibly takes this out of the realm of "speaking figuratively."
It's discouraging to know people are voting against you for all the wrong reasons. Don't you agree?
Not at all. I mean, you get to vote even though I know you're doing it on the basis of paranoid delusion, outright misinformation, and a nativist, shallow conception of the issues. But I guess where liberals differ is that we believe that the benefits of broad access to social institutions outweigh the disadvantages of having our opponents use that access for all the wrong reasons.
I mean, how would we keep paranoid nativists - or, for that matter, those who "know nothing" of current events (by what standard?) - from voting, without also preventing voting by a lot of people who legitimately should vote, but have trouble with tests, or with reciting detailed history on command (despite their correct understanding of history in its broad strokes), or might be productive members of society but in between paychecks as a temporary situation that arose, coincidentally, around Election day?
And why would Coulter - trying to understand how she would be "speaking figuratively" here, again - refer to precisely those measures which were designing to keep black people from voting? If the question is awareness of current or historical events, how does a poll tax address that? Why would having money prove that you remembered 9th grade civics? Again, the most reasonable explanation is that she's speaking literally - she'd literally like less black people to vote, because she knows they tend to vote for Democrats.
This is a case where she went way over the line.
Well, I'm glad we agree for once.
She's objecting to the environmentalist extremists who seem to care more for the spotted owl than for human wellbeing.
But she doesn't say that. That's not even a "speaking figuratively" interpretation of her words - that's just a context you've invented to explain them away.
I found this really funny because it's so true and I've thought the same myself and then had to try to push it out of my head.
Why would it be true? Democrats won elections over and over again before women had the right to vote. In the US, women's sufferage was ratified by the 19th Amendment under President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, so clearly there's at least one Democrat who won the Presidency without the woman's vote.
If nothing else, you have to admit that it's an incredibly dumb thing for Coulter to say. Of course there would be Democratic presidents, because the Democratic party, like the Republican, would promote policies meant to attract male voters. It's just dumb.
Bad taste I'd say. But she's insisting on her right to violate the canons of Political Correctness by using the term "faggot" risking being put in the prison of rehab for it.
Sure, but my point is that Coulter has a pattern of picking on those not afforded an opportunity to respond. Would she call Edwards a "faggot" to his face? Doesn't that kind of ring hollow, anyway, calling "gay" a man most famous for his fertile extramarital affair with another woman? It doesn't make a lot of sense. Isn't this just Coulter doing same name-calling, again at someone who isn't there to respond, just for the sake of being provocative? Isn't that just kind of dumb and cowardly? Any old idiot can cause offense. What's the point?
Well, he is sort of.
How, exactly? His harem of girls on the side? His Southern accent? His chiseled features? It's like saying that the Brawny Guy is effeminate because his picture is on paper towels. "Oh, that Brawny guy, what a queer, with his beard and his lumberjack axe. Always felling trees, just like you'd expect from a swish." It makes no sense.
That's silly, they've got plenty of people to defend them, apparently the whole anti-Coulter crowd for starters.
Ok, but guess what, she doesn't say those things in the room with us. She won't go on any program where she might be called to account for those remarks. She won't defend her books anywhere where they might be subject to fact-checking.
Where's the courage in that? It's easy enough to be a bomb-thrower when you only surround yourself with people who will praise you for it.
She's NOT doing anything like what is being ijmnputed to here that imnplies it's the same as verbally abusing people to their face.
But that's exactly what I'm saying - she'll only verbally abuse people behind their backs. What about that could possibly be worth defending?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 12:59 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:42 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 208 of 274 (679731)
11-15-2012 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by crashfrog
11-15-2012 1:14 PM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
Isn't the "physical intimidation" the execution of a traitor as an example? What other physical intimidation are you talking about? You seem to have something else in mind than the example of executing a traitor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2012 1:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by jar, posted 11-15-2012 1:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 210 by Rahvin, posted 11-15-2012 2:52 PM Faith has replied
 Message 211 by crashfrog, posted 11-15-2012 2:59 PM Faith has replied
 Message 213 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-15-2012 3:36 PM Faith has replied
 Message 254 by ramoss, posted 11-17-2012 5:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 209 of 274 (679733)
11-15-2012 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
11-15-2012 1:42 PM


Is it hyperbole
Is it hyperbole?
So when a Conservative Christian here at FPN suggested that I should be taken out and shot as a traitor to Christianity is there any reason to be surprised when many folk see the Christian Right as one of the greatest human threats existing today?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


(6)
Message 210 of 274 (679748)
11-15-2012 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
11-15-2012 1:42 PM


Re: Ann's hyperbole
You seem to have something else in mind than the example of executing a traitor.
At issue is your comparison of liberals to traitors; that somehow we had better be intimidated and put in our place before we turn into full traitors.
Liberalism is not at all congruous with treason, faith. The comparison itself is beyond insulting. Liberalism leads to treason in the same way that conservatism does - that is, they do not, not by themselves.
Amusingly, the actual traitor in Coulter's quote was a Muslim theocratic extremist - by any definition of the term, he would have been considered an ultra-conservative, not remotely a liberal, unless you think that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are secretly huge supporters of women's rights, gay marriage, and religious freedom.
Executing a traitor should provide exactly as much of a "warning" to conservatives as to liberals...but curiously Coulter, and you in defending her, apply it only to liberals. Because you disagree with us.
Even vehement political disagreement is not treason. One can be a full-on Communist without being a traitor, Faith - treason requires giving aid or comfort to an enemy in a time of war. Simply being a liberal (or even a radical) is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 11-15-2012 1:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Faith, posted 11-16-2012 12:06 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024