Drag Liberals Into The Light

[Gem]

Why should she push for the Fairness Doctrine...Capitalism is working just fine, as is. FoxNews is growing in leaps and bounds while liberal news programs like those on NBC, CBS, and ABC falter and liberal newspapers see their circulation rates plunge downward as people looking for unbiased reporting head to the internet...where they at least know that they will be able to find BOTH sides of the argument rather than just one.


Coulter makes no apologies for her actions because she has nothing to apologize for. She presents her flamboyant opinion in a flamboyant way. She takes and issue and runs as far to the right as possible in order to spawn debate and conversation...and obviously, as this thread shows, it works.

Why should Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Al Franken apologize for their HONEST extreme views? What I object to is the LIES...and from what I have seen, Ann Coulter doesn't lie...she just generalizes obviously (so obviously its more parody then serious discourse) and doesn't candy coat.

She sees that the Democratic Party supports a Pro-Choice agenda. She doesn't say, "Some members of the Democratic party support a woman's right to choose." She states, "The Democratic Party supports murder."

She isn't dishonest. Check out how many pro-life speakers there were at the Democratic Convention...she has a point...and by hyperbolizing it she draws peoples attention to it.

It seems to me that what you are suggesting would create a boring, tepid state of political discourse. We need Coulter's and Moore's...they make it interesting and show the majority of us that we all aren't as different as we think we are....at least we aren't as crazy as those two!!!

I think that the liberals mistake with Coulter is that they take her too seriously. I would say that the conservatives do the same with Moore...but the only difference there is that Moore is given respect and places of honor next to former presidents at important democratic events...Democratic Senators praise his propaganda as important work that everyone should see before they vote...Moore is taken seriously be the Democratic Party....

You'll never see Dick Cheney, George Bush, Condeleeza Rice telling an audience that if they really want to know what the Democrats are up to they should read "Treason."

 

[007]

Liberals don't support abortion. I know several religious liberals who are very much against it, but believe in free will and thus want to give women the right to choose. Liberals aren't for abortion technically, just the right to choose. I happen to be against abortion and against it being legal.

Good Lord... *shaking head*... my brain couldn't hardly comprehend that as something to be read even though it was in print... it's as though you said, "the sun is shinning, but it really doesn't shine".

Listen, "ABORTION" is "KILLING". There is no GRAY AREA about that. Abort a fetus, you're murdering it. Simple. Cut and dried. If you support the "choice" to "kill", then you're supporting "killing".

The one thing I truely enjoy about conservatives is most are very concise, and the one thing that I truely dislike about liberals is how they twist and contort an issue into broken thoughts and half truths.

 

[IControlThePast]

Good Lord... *shaking head*... my brain couldn't hardly comprehend that as something to be read even though it was in print... it's as though you said, "the sun is shinning, but it really doesn't shine".

Listen, "ABORTION" is "KILLING". There is no GRAY AREA about that. Abort a fetus, you're murdering it. Simple. Cut and dried. If you support the "choice" to "kill", then you're supporting "killing".

The one thing I truely enjoy about conservatives is most are very concise, and the one thing that I truely dislike about liberals is how they twist and contort an issue into broken thoughts and half truths.

Uh oh, you've used kill and murder interchangably, and it seems you are coming from a Christian perspective, so how about the death penalty? Thought shalt not kill right?

Nobody is pro-abortion. People are pro-choice. I know it is murder, but quite a lot of people think that banning it would not decrease the number of abortions, and you know what happened last time the government tried to take away a right it had given , and that by keeping abortion legal the government at least has a way to regulate it. I can understand how people could think the opposing viewpoint might be correct. They think they support less killing by supporting abortion. The ends justify the means, right?

Why should she push for the Fairness Doctrine...Capitalism is working just fine, as is. FoxNews is growing in leaps and bounds while liberal news programs like those on NBC, CBS, and ABC falter and liberal newspapers see their circulation rates plunge downward as people looking for unbiased reporting head to the internet...where they at least know that they will be able to find BOTH sides of the argument rather than just one.


Coulter makes no apologies for her actions because she has nothing to apologize for. She presents her flamboyant opinion in a flamboyant way. She takes and issue and runs as far to the right as possible in order to spawn debate and conversation...and obviously, as this thread shows, it works.

Why should Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, Al Franken apologize for their HONEST extreme views? What I object to is the LIES...and from what I have seen, Ann Coulter doesn't lie...she just generalizes obviously (so obviously its more parody then serious discourse) and doesn't candy coat.

She sees that the Democratic Party supports a Pro-Choice agenda. She doesn't say, "Some members of the Democratic party support a woman's right to choose." She states, "The Democratic Party supports murder."

She isn't dishonest. Check out how many pro-life speakers there were at the Democratic Convention...she has a point...and by hyperbolizing it she draws peoples attention to it.

It seems to me that what you are suggesting would create a boring, tepid state of political discourse. We need Coulter's and Moore's...they make it interesting and show the majority of us that we all aren't as different as we think we are....at least we aren't as crazy as those two!!!

I think that the liberals mistake with Coulter is that they take her too seriously. I would say that the conservatives do the same with Moore...but the only difference there is that Moore is given respect and places of honor next to former presidents at important democratic events...Democratic Senators praise his propaganda as important work that everyone should see before they vote...Moore is taken seriously be the Democratic Party....

You'll never see Dick Cheney, George Bush, Condeleeza Rice telling an audience that if they really want to know what the Democrats are up to they should read "Treason."

Well there is quite a large number of uninformed people out there. Our news doesn't need to be Capitalistic, because you know what it will do, it will turn into entertainment to draw more viewers in and cease being news. That is why Fox is the most watched news station, but also has the least informed viewers. In a Democratic society it is essential for the voters to be informed. If your going to turn it into entertainment then make them drop the guise of calling it news.

I can tell you Ann Coulter, and it seems Mike Moore haven't quite united liberal and conservative camps in harmony of realizing we're not different. Other people here are wondering why Coulter makes liberals so mad.

There are plenty of ways to make politics entertaining instead of polemical attacks, which are the lowest form of humor. Regan could tell jokes without inflaming people. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart does a fair job of educating people suprisingly and being funny at the same time. Both of these incursions of humor into politics don't enrage people.

 

[Gem]

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart does a fair job of educating people suprisingly and being funny at the same time.

Sorry...you had me nodding in agreement right up until this absolutely ludicrous statement.

I love John Stewart...I think he is a hysterical comedian. But his brand of news is liberal propaganda of the worst kind. I think he is more dangerous than Michael Moore.

Why?

Because people take him seriously, he has, for some unknown reason, begun to be taken seriously...begun to be viewed as a "journalist"...I'm in my mid-20's and I can tell you that the vast majority of my college friends get their "news" from this man who is an avowed liberal who (yes, while occassionally mocking liberals as well as conservatives) consistently has an anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-pretty much everything Bush supports message.

Everyone knows Moore is a propagandist...but most people (who are, to be blunt, sadly uninformed) feel, as you expressed, that Stewart gives the news, gives actual facts just with funny quips thrown at both sides. Nothing could be further from the truth.

He is who young people are watching...and we should be very concerned about how he is shaping their views of politics and world events.

To state that he is somehow giving a fair shake to what is really going on is ridiculous, he makes his millions on turning the news into liberal comedy....he is a perfect example of what you are claiming you DISLIKE...yet because you find him funny he is ok, but Moore and Coulter are not because they do not entertain you.

 

[IControlThePast]

Sorry...you had me nodding in agreement right up until this absolutely ludicrous statement.

I love John Stewart...I think he is a hysterical comedian. But his brand of news is liberal propaganda of the worst kind. I think he is more dangerous than Michael Moore.

Why?

Because people take him seriously, he has, for some unknown reason, begun to be taken seriously...begun to be viewed as a "journalist"...I'm in my mid-20's and I can tell you that the vast majority of my college friends get their "news" from this man who is an avowed liberal who (yes, while occassionally mocking liberals as well as conservatives) consistently has an anti-Republican, anti-conservative, anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-pretty much everything Bush supports message.

Everyone knows Moore is a propagandist...but most people (who are, to be blunt, sadly uninformed) feel, as you expressed, that Stewart gives the news, gives actual facts just with funny quips thrown at both sides. Nothing could be further from the truth.

He is who young people are watching...and we should be very concerned about how he is shaping their views of politics and world events.

To state that he is somehow giving a fair shake to what is really going on is ridiculous, he makes his millions on turning the news into liberal comedy....he is a perfect example of what you are claiming you DISLIKE...yet because you find him funny he is ok, but Moore and Coulter are not because they do not entertain you.

Well his viewers somehow seem to be more informed than those of Fox news based on studies taken. The studies are the reason I think so, because I wouldn't think so from just watching the show. My friends that watch the Jon Stewart happen to be very informed. There might be confounding variables, like people getting their news from the internet and then watching his show for only entertainment, but somehow his viewers are more informed than those of O'Reilly, and the show did win two Peabodys for what that is worth. Most people who watch the show, which doesn't call itself news, and are informed somehow even if it isn't by the show, which makes it ok in my book.

Hey, now if we removed all the liberals from the country that would create a tepid political situation. I mind Coulter and Moore because they claim to be accurate and representative, and spout only inflammatory rhetoric.

 

[007]

Uh oh, you've used kill and murder interchangably, and it seems you are coming from a Christian perspective, so how about the death penalty? Thought shalt not kill right?

Yes I am coming from a Christian stand point, and what's wrong with using kill and murder in the same sentence? If you murder someone, you've killed them haven't you? And if you abort a fetus, you've killed it, so in the same breath, you've murdered it. Is there some part of that that's is hard to understand? So thou shalt not kill is one of the ten commandments, so there is too a law in America against murder. Liberals pushed for and want to continue a legal murder campaign against the unborn.

Well his viewers somehow seem to be more informed than those of Fox news based on studies taken.

Some people start out here sounding half way intelligent, and then as they go on their liberalness starts to pour out. Your statement above... well... it's absolutely ignorant and foolish, and you've just insulted the intelligence of most of this board.

Now please excuse me... I have to go

 

[IControlThePast]

Yes I am coming from a Christian stand point, and what's wrong with using kill and murder in the same sentence? If you murder someone, you've killed them haven't you? And if you abort a fetus, you've killed it, so in the same breath, you've murdered it. Is there some part of that that's is hard to understand? So thou shalt not kill is one of the ten commandments, so there is too a law in America against murder. Liberals pushed for and want to continue a legal murder campaign against the unborn.



Some people start out here sounding half way intelligent, and then as they go on their liberalness starts to pour out. Your statement above... well... it's absolutely ignorant and foolish, and you've just insulted the intelligence of most of this board.

Now please excuse me... I have to go

It is because liberals take pleasure in watching the little babies die, especially those partial birth ones right ? Many Christians suprisingly support the Death Penalty because when translated from original documents the commandment is "thou shalt not murder," and argue the words can't be used interchangably. Is there something confusing about the idea that regulating abortion will decrease the number of killed fetuses?

I would say many on this board are not representative of the average viewer of Fox News, but I am sorry for assuming large studies would include more people and a more diverse group of people than the people you've asked about The Daily Show. Just because I'm going to a small technical college doesn't mean I'm stupid :tng: .

 

[ScreamingEagle]

IControlThePast: you've claimed that Ann Coulter is "extreme".

With regard to the recent liberal attack on Couter speaking at UT...who's being "extreme" now?

 

[no1tovote4]

IControlThePast: you've claimed that Ann Coulter is "extreme".

With regard to the recent liberal attack on Couter speaking at UT...who's being "extreme" now?

Eh, he wasn't being extreme. That was the usual Liberal attempt to shut down another's right to free speech.

The other way is to call it "Nazism" when somebody expresses an opinion even slightly differing from their talking points. Call them "jack-booted thugs" when somebody says that what they are saying may be counter productive. Then when they can't say anything because you are shouting them down, and they are afraid to be associated with Nazis by your extremism you can impose your will upon them while calling it "tolerance".

 

[IControlThePast]

IControlThePast: you've claimed that Ann Coulter is "extreme".

With regard to the recent liberal attack on Couter speaking at UT...who's being "extreme" now?

I have no idea what happened at Coulter's speech, but whatever it was how has it made Coulter any less extreme?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I have no idea what happened at Coulter's speech, but whatever it was how has it made Coulter any less extreme?

Extreme in what sense? Coulter does not break the law.

Since you are comparing Coulter's behavior to others, it is pertinent to take a look at the behavior of those who oppose her:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0504051_ann_coulter_1.html

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Icontrolthepast, where did you get that "Drunken Beer Hall Nazi" avatar?

 

[IControlThePast]

Icontrolthepast, where did you get that "Drunken Beer Hall Nazi" avatar?

I searched the internet. It is a puppet of the protagonist of the novel of a man who extensively fought the Germans.

Extreme in what sense? Coulter does not break the law.

Since you are comparing Coulter's behavior to others, it is pertinent to take a look at the behavior of those who oppose her:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0504051_ann_coulter_1.html

There are far out people like Dean and Moore on the Democratic side like I have admitted, and you're not making Coulter look any better by comparing her to them.

This man seems to have asked a question about the sexual practices of several Republicans. It's not like Coulter has never commented on Clinton's sexual practices. I can only assume the hand gestures were inappropriate (although there seems to be more lewd gestures on this site than what he made ) considering the article does not mention what they are. Whatever he did was probably inappropriate, but people like him don't justify Coulter at all.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I searched the internet. It is a puppet of the protagonist of the novel of a man who extensively fought the Germans.

And which novel would that be?

 

[IControlThePast]

And which novel would that be?

It's Czech: Osudy dobrého vojáka Švejka za světové války

 

[IControlThePast]

Would you prefer this as an avatar?

 

[007]

Many Christians suprisingly support the Death Penalty because when translated from original documents the commandment is "thou shalt not murder," and argue the words can't be used interchangably.

Yeah... I'm a Christian, and already admittedly not that good of a one, but none the less a Christian. I will never denounce the name of my Lord.

Getting to the death penalty, yes, I support the death penalty, for people that have KILLED someone. As far as I know, so far, a FETUS hasn't willfully KILLED anyone. See the difference? I'm hoping you're smart enough to understand.

I would say many on this board are not representative of the average viewer of Fox News,

You did say that, and you are wrong.