Democrats & Liberals Archives

The GOP and The Politics of Mourning

We have all heard from the Right column how people who lost their loved ones on 9/11 should shut up and stay out of politics. Apparently they have forgotten the widows, and other people who lost loved ones on 9/11, who spoke at the Republican National Convention: Deanna Burnett, whose husband was on Flight 93, Debra Burlingame, whose brother was on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, Tara Stackpole, wife of a fallen firefighter. Lisa Beamer was a featured guest.

I'm sure Ann Coulter and other Republicans were outraged at the time because the holy event of a widow's mourning was being soiled with politics. Right?

Posted by Woody Mena at June 14, 2006 7:59 AM
Comments
Comment #157536

Right, the outrage was overwhelming. The book Coulter wrote on the subject was… well nonexistant. Just like the outrage felt from having a victim go poltical. But remember Ann doesnt speak for them.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 14, 2006 8:47 AM
Comment #157539

This gets to where people’s understanding and mental base lie. REPs seem quite fine with the idea of revenge (hence they don’t see the politics when widows support the war & Bush.) However, the concept of forgiveness or pacifism is completely foreign to them, so they can only assume that people who come out against the war and Bush are doing this for solely political reasons.

Of course, I’m not sure how you change the way we are governed while avoiding being political - kind of need to be political to affect change… right?

I also think there is a base dogma within the REP party that absolutely does not allow for dissent or disagreement. So, anyone who does not support this Administration (in every possible way) is seem as a “traitor” and un-American… although this seems to get to the heart of what it truly means to be an American.

I would never assume that the DEMs doing everything right - or even come close to that, but we do allow for discussion and disagreement… and that’s at least a good place to begin.

Posted by: tony at June 14, 2006 9:11 AM
Comment #157546

It’s ironic that Godfulness is about tolerance, acceptance, love, respect, and humility — none of which Ann Coulter possesses. And she has the temerity to call Dems Godless. Priceless. In her dead, black heart, it’s obviously more heinous for a 9-11 widow to try to press for answers to a national tragedy than it is for the Republicans to steal elections, oust CIA operatives, begin a war in a country that posed no immediate threat to us, reward the rich while ignoring the poor, spend like drunken sailors, and illegally eavesdrop on innocent Americans. What a good, honest God-enriched party she represents.

Posted by: scoreggi at June 14, 2006 9:41 AM
Comment #157554

Ann Coulter? I can’t imagine anyone taking that woman seriously. Know what she reminds me of? She reminds me of the token dunce that hangs out with all the smart people just because she is a female. She’s not intelligent, she’s not right 99% of the time she speaks, and she’s obnoxious and self-righteous. In addition, she’s a…oh, I can’t really say it here in the US, can I?

Oh, well. See you, Auntie.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 14, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #157558

Ann Coulter is brutally honest.She knows how to get a point across.If you can’t handle the heat stay out of the kitchen!

Posted by: lookingout at June 14, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #157563

Woody:

We have all heard from the Right column how people who lost their loved ones on 9/11 should shut up and stay out of politics.

I’ve never seen that sentiment from the right column. Allow me to clarify what I HAVE seen:

I’ve seen people say that those who lost loved ones on 9-11 have a unique perspective that the rest of us do not have. This perspective does not make them experts in the field of terrorism, war, international relations etc, but does give mean they are more personally connected to 9-11 than the rest of us. My father died of cancer—that makes me more personally connected to the death of a parent, cancer, child psychology etc. But it makes my knowledge of cancer etc no greater or lesser than someone elses.

There are 9-11 or Iraq widows or parents on both sides of the fence. A Cindy Sheehan or a Kristin Breitweiser has no higher moral ground than any other widow or parent of 9-11 or Iraq. They ALL have the same moral ground to stand on, and they earned that moral ground simply by being the spouse or parent of someone who died.

For the record, Ann Coulter’s comments were utterly insensitive. I recognize the point she was trying to make, but she did so in an offensive way. That’s her style—I don’t like it.

No one is saying that relatives of 9-11 victims should stay out of politics, that I’ve seen. If someone has said that, I’d categorically oppose their position. But its fair to say that widows or parents of 9-11 or Iraq do not deserve sainthood or expert status simply based on their loss, tragic as that loss was.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 14, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #157576

JBOD,

Maybe I should rephrase - the going sentiment was that 9/11 widows who get involved with politics can’t complain if people hurl mud at them and call them names. But I haven’t seen many Democrats hurling mud at Lisa Beamer, etc. We don’t have that much gall.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 14, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #157577

Joebagodonuts,
I have two problems with what you have written. First, I have never seen anyone demanding that they recieve sainthood or not be criticized for their views. Coulter is venemously attacking a non-existant problem.

Second, you can’t just dismiss what they say because they were personally affected. It is likely that they have worked rather hard to understand the issues involved, because they care more than most people. My wife has lupus. I’m a biologist who studies lupus. A motivation for me to study lupus is that I see how it affects my wife. I know a heck of a lot about lupus for that reason. You can’t say that you don’t need to listen to what I say about lupus “just because your wife has it”.

My point is that personal tragedy is often a motivator to learn about something. Coulter, nor anyone else I’ve seen post about this, have considered how much these or other women actually know about the topic, instead assuming that they are just talking out of grief (or ruthless, immoral opportunism, depending on who is saying it).

Posted by: Brian Poole at June 14, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #157590

Ann made her point quite effectively, she’s getting lots of attention, and raking in book sales. Crassness is the pentultimate of free markets and capitalism. It’s makes a body proud. The sheep will now follow to the right. Baaaaa Baaaaaa.

Posted by: gergle at June 14, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #157593

While I’m not a huge Jay Leno fan tonight my TV will be tuned to the Tonight show.

The guest list includes Ann Coulter and George Carlin. It could only get better if there were a surprise appearance by Bill Clinton.

Given the way Ann whined, “you’re getting testy with me” to Matt Lauer this should be freakin’ hilarious.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 14, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #157596

“Ann Coulter is brutally honest.She knows how to get a point across.If you can’t handle the heat stay out of the kitchen!

Posted by: lookingout at June 14, 2006 10:24 AM”

Ann is like the school ground bully that revels in doing emotional harm to her victims.

Her conservative supporters are like the parents of the bully who complain to the principle when their “poor child” finally meets her match and comes home crying with a bloody nose.

I think the word I’m looking for is sociopaths.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 14, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #157600

The widows earned some right to speak to the matter of 9/11 by bitter experience. They are accorded special respect on the matter by that alone. It would be, of course, a fallacy to suggest that their misery should be cause for agreement (argument from pity).

Ann Coulter’s comments might be honest in that they express her true feelings (she’s one of those people the joke “No, tell me what you really feel” was tailor-made for) They are not honest, though, in their approach to the debate.

First and foremost, this is a poisoning of the well. Before the widows can defend themselves, they are implied to be opportunistics, cold-bloodedly exploiting their tragedy for gain. This is the point she wants to be absorbed before anything else: They have no real feelings about 9/11.

And if they display them, or other speak of them? Why then, they’re just faking it. It’s no coincidence that Ann Coulter wrote the book on slander. This is the heartless, offensive slander at the center of it all, the vicious point meant to turn people against these women.

Republicans who have taken this point to heart should be ashamed of themselves. Such a point, posed legitimately, should require extraordinary evidence. Coulter should have to recount one argument after another before she even gets to this point. This is not an honest point here, it’s a venomous barb, wrapped in the most partisan of language.

“Why do you believe this, Ann?” should be the question on every Republicans lips. Instead, so many Republicans are just blindly accepting Ann’s point.

Why do you on the Right wing believe this slander without the most extraordinary of language? Why is Ann Coulter known as a truth teller when people won’t research the truth, and take a truly fair and balance approach to her charges?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #157602

The first line of the last paragraph should use the word “proof” in the stead of “language”.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #157610

Woody, you got it. When I saw the video of Coulter’s petulant blathering on the Today show, the first thing that came to mind was Lisa Beamer being an honored guest at the GOP Convention.

scoreggi, spot on.

joshua crime, I think we’re still allowed to use the words “sex change” and transgendered in the US, aren’t we?
Seriously, Ann’s adams apple is almost as big as my fist, so he’s either made some drastic changes, or perhaps “she” was born with an extra y chromosome?

Kansas Dem:
“I think the word I’m looking for is sociopaths.”

Good call. Definitely another word that could be applied to Mistress Ann.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 14, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #157612

Lookingout,

Ann Coulter is brutally honest.She knows how to get a point across.If you can’t handle the heat stay out of the kitchen!

Good advice, I will stay away from Ann Coulter kitchen for sure. It stink even over atlantic ocean, go figure!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 14, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #157620

Why the left hates Ann Coulter!Ann forces the left to look at themselves through the eyes of patriotic American’s.There are many on the right and the left that agree with ann’s statements but would never utter such words.The liberal left hates Ann Coulter as much as they hate George Bush and Carl Rove.All three of these Patriots have one thing in common They are brutally honest.This is a new twist to politics.Political correctness is a thing of the past thanks to these who call a spade a spade.Agood example of this is the fact that Al sharpton At the 2004 democratic national convention was allowed more time to speak than the Key note speaker.Knowing that Al Had absolutly no clout they allowed him to take over the whole show.If you can’t control your own party how can you expect the American people to put trust and faith in your party to control events that effect the U.S,A. and the rest of the world?Liberals seem to have more respect for the Micheal Moorers and Micheal Jacksons of the world than they have for the fighting men and women who are willing to die for the freedom of other people in other countries.Only time will tell how long the Democrat party will survive.I’m guessing By November of 2008 the American people will have a very good picture of what the left stands for.So in short JANUARY 2009 WE CAN ALL TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND BID THE DEMS. A FAIR THEE WELL.That will be the true turning point in American history!

Posted by: lookingout at June 14, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #157631

I saw Lisa Beamer that ONE time after 9/11 as President Bush’ guest at his Speech to the Nation. I have NOT heard from her again. Although, she might have been on a few talk shows after that to copyright and promote the term her husband so valiantly uttered on flight 93, “Let’s Roll!”.

What other widows and widowers have NOT done are shadowed congress people and senators, written columns for liberal magazines such as Salon.com or Slate.com, demand for Palestinian statehood, denounce the Patriot Act, etc., etc.

When you do that, you become FAIR GAME to be analyzed and criticized.

Posted by: Centaur at June 14, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #157633

Brian:

I think if you look back, you’ll find that Molly Ivins said that Cindy Sheehan, due to her loss, has the “moral authority” to speak for American families, or something to that effect. I think she has that, but so does anyone else who lost family in 9-11 or Iraq. No more and no less than Cindy Sheehan or the Breitweiser group.

I hope you read back through my post and recognize that I’ve never said that I’d “just dismiss what they say because they were personally affected.” I’d never dismiss what they have to say on that basis. I would also not accept what they have to say solely on that basis.

I’m sorry about your wife’s condition—it must be difficult. That your wife has lupus gives you a slightly better understanding of lupus than the rest of us. That you have a background in biology and have researched lupus gives you a much greater knowledge than the rest of us. I’d give the second part a much higher level of importance if I were assessing your comments on lupus. I do the same with the Cindy Sheehans and Kristin Breitweisers too.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 14, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #157635

lookingout-
If Ann Coulter’s points of view were consensus, she wouldn’t make news every time she saw fit to stick her foot in her mouth. Nobody would notice.

Brutal honesty, I think, would require more honesty and less brutality on the part of the people you mentioned. After all, Karl Rove and Bush both lied to us about leaked information. As for Ann Coulter, if she were really honest, she wouldn’t simply fling these controversial opinions around without building the arguments and gathering the extraordinary evidence to back these claims.

The use of ad hominem arguments and nasty rhetoric is nothing new in politics. It’s positively ancient.

But political correctness? All and all, I think it’s an error to take it to the extremes. That Political incorrectness goes in the opposite direction does not strike me as making it any more virtuous; it’s a mirror image mistake.

Society has always had some standards of etiquette, some things you don’t say without causing a stir. Of course, those standards sometimes protects things and people who aren’t so virtuous, so sometimes we do need to be brutally honest. That said, we need to be willing to back our breach of good manners with whatever evidence or logic it is that causes us to set aside those rules. If we can successfuly argue whatever that point is, so as to convince people the disruption was justified, then we can rightly be praised as bold.

If we fail to do that, we can rightly be seen by others as obnoxious.

Al Sharpton went off the script, but when he did so, he did so to good effect. He gave an answer to Bush’s question as to why blacks should prefer the Democrats, with the 40 Acres and a Mule section to the speech. Additionally, it’s not the Academy Awards. Nobody’s going to play music to get Al Sharpton off the stage.

As for the Keynote Speaker? He may not have gone on as long as Al Sharpton, but he certainly didn’t make a smaller impression for that. The Keynote Speaker was Barack Obama, and people were talking about that once he was done. Folks will remember that speech. They sure remembered him on Election Day.

Take a look at the polls right now. These are not the numbers of a healthy party. You folks are riding on your base right now, and even then, the wheels are squeaking.

The Republicans may have acted boldly but most of America believes they haven’t done it wisely. Y’all have challenged the average American’s cherished institution, and screwed up on major policy initiatives. Where are the triumphs? Where are the unadulterated victories?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2006 1:29 PM
Comment #157640

—Tell a lie long enough an some will believe it!

Posted by: DAVID at June 14, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #157643

Mr.Daugherty You are still making one deadly mistake.Your poll’s i hate to sound like a broken record but the truth will set you free.DATE LINE Election Day 2004 Bush packed and ready to head back to texas.The last time i looked ole G.W. is still hanging his hat at the white house.Carl Rove is still around to cause big time problems for the Dems.V.P.Cheny still running interferance for the American people.And the liberal democrats are still Pouting!!

Posted by: lookingout at June 14, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #157645

Centaur:
“When you do that, you become FAIR GAME to be analyzed and criticized.”

Yes, for their politics the Jersey Girls became fair game to be criticized, but they did not deserve to be called “harpies” and “witches” whose “husbands were probably going to divorce them” and who “enjoyed their husbands deaths so much.”
Those were very vicious personal attacks that had nothing to do with analyzing anything — and they were made by a “woman” without an ounce of respect, kindness or common decency for those who don’t agree with her political views. A “woman” who has long been declaring that all liberals are “Godless”, thus proving she doesn’t know jack-sh*t about liberals, or about the philosophy expounded by Jesus in the New Testament, which her supposed religion was based upon.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 14, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #157648

—Stephen I only hope your messages reach out to a large group of our Democratic base then we could expect a Great Future. You seem to have affected some hear on this blog.

Posted by: DAVID at June 14, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #157663

Ann Coulter = Godless Whore

Posted by: tony at June 14, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #157667

Woody

People who suffer tragedies have the expertise to talk about grief. They may or may not have other knowledge. Their circumstances give them visibility, but they do not guarantee that they have anything to say.

When someone who has suffered a tragedy says something, the natural response is to give them the benefit of the doubt. If, however, they persist in error or abuse others, it is fitting and proper to counter them. Victimhood confers no special immunity.

The example often mentioned is Cindy Sheehan, who spews hateful vitriol. If we want to be generous, we can say that she is deranged by the death of her son. But we should not believe what she says just because of her loss. She does not speak for all soldiers or even for her own son.

Some people who have suffered tragedy transcend it to become experts in their own right. I don’t recall the name, but that guy who is an advocate for lost children seems to have taken his tragedy and made himself an expert and a useful advocate. But the Jersey Girls or Cindy Sheehan have not done that. They are using their celebrity for partisan purposes.

There is no particular reason to believe they have any expertise in politics and their opinions in that area should be considered similar to those of any other widows from New Jersey, no less, but also no more.

Posted by: Jack at June 14, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #157679

KansasDem -

thanks for the heads-up - I’ll definitely be watching Jay Leno tonight.

Posted by: Lisa C. at June 14, 2006 3:07 PM
Comment #157699
The example often mentioned is Cindy Sheehan, who spews hateful vitriol. If we want to be generous, we can say that she is deranged by the death of her son.

That’s very generous of you, Jack. Pat yourself on the back. I’ll assume that the 9/11 survivors who endorsed Bush were also “deranged”, since I disagree with them.

…made himself an expert and a useful advocate. But the Jersey Girls or Cindy Sheehan have not done that. They are using their celebrity for partisan purposes.

The Jersey Girls managed to get a (relatively) honest investigation of 9/11, so they are quite useful IMHO. They continue to hold the admin’s feet to the fire.

I have heard that the Jersey Girls are Republicans who voted for Bush… but what’s wrong with being partisan, anyway? I think I just demonstrated that 9/11 is used for partisan purposes by the GOP. I assume you find that abhorrent?

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 14, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #157728

“I saw Lisa Beamer that ONE time after 9/11 as President Bush’ guest at his Speech to the Nation.”

Oh that’s right, it was the State of Union where Bush told us that “Let’s Roll” was the new American motto. It was her in-laws who were guests at the GOP Convention.
But since Lisa Beamer is now on the Presidential Prayer Team, she’s probably much better acquainted with the president at this point. Maybe she’s even chummy with the Godly Ann Coulter.

“I have NOT heard from her again. Although, she might have been on a few talk shows after that to copyright and promote the term her husband so valiantly uttered on flight 93, “Let’s Roll!”.”

Yeah, she went on Larry King to promote her book with that title. But she already held the copyright on “Let’s Roll” by that point — she actually applied for it in Dec. of 2001. Just a few months after her husbands death. Btw, I believe she attempted to sue Neil Young for using the phrase in his song, but she thought nothing of licensing it to Wal-Mart, and the Florida State football team and others who were willing to pay her a hefty price.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 14, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #157774

Adrienne,
Lisa Beamer COPYRIGHTED “let’s roll”? I didnt’ know that!! Man, talk about personal gain from tragedy!!

Anyhow, about dear sweet Ann. I remember tuning into some political show or other, and thinking nice looking woman! upon seeing her. However, in just a few minutes, my opinion did a 180. There is little or no God in that woman. There is, however, a lot of hate. That is never attractive

Posted by: Steve Miller at June 14, 2006 5:51 PM
Comment #157801

“Cindy Sheehan, who spews hateful vitriol.”

Jack, give me one example, please! Make the example fit your definition.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 14, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #157808

I think I’m retiring from this forum.
While it was nice for a while to be able to have more intelligent, introspective discussions with other democrats, it’s now just turned into Yahoo lite. An intriguing article gets written, and before we can get to meaty, interesting discussion, we get sidetracked by asshole trolls, cut and pasting the usual right wing talking points, and then the next 20 posts are wasted feeding the trolls. Just look at the next article up from this one. First 5 posts are from right wingers spewing their crap, no liberals as of yet.
You guys enjoy. I’ll be back someday, when the trolls get bored and go ruin some other venue.
One note on the actual topic: When we have to waste breath actually DEBATING whether anncoulter is at all human, then were just wasting bandwidth. The right loves her because she actually says the craven, vacuous, hatefilled things that fill their hearts, but their too afraid to actually say out loud. She’s their perfect representative. She doesn’t speak the truth, but she speaks THEIR truth.
Anyone who wants to contact me privately, pohlposition@sbcglobal.net
Goodbye all.

Posted by: norby at June 14, 2006 7:09 PM
Comment #157814

Has anyone here heard that the Rude Pundit has been busy uncovering a whole lot of plagiarism in Ann’s new book? Yes, it seems Ann isn’t just a cruel and shameless skank with no decency, she’s also not above lifting passages from all over the place without giving any attributions.
Also, if you haven’t read it yet, read RP’s first review of the book. I have to say, it’s extremely foul, but oh man, is it ever funny!

Posted by: Adrienne at June 14, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #157817

Norby, don’t go!!!
Damn, I’m going to miss reading his posts.
Stupid Trolls.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 14, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #157846

Norby,

So, you let the Trolls win?

This I fear is a huge problem with us Democrats. We tire of the same lame BS and we say, “ah, screw it”! I don’t care where you go, you’re going to hear the same crap from Republicans wherever you go.

How do you think the trolls, er, ah, Republicans rose to power. When we get tired of arguing with the obvious stupidity of their comments they turn the stupid comments into FACTS just by repeating them over and over and over.

If you quit then you have been “Roved” plain and simple!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 14, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #157884

lookingout-
A deadly mistake?
*looks for anvil above head*

Look, mister, if all you can do is just make noise about what great people the Republicans are, how the White House team is the second coming, and how you’re going to get elected every election season from here to judgment day, then I don’t know what you’re doing here.

I look at Jack’s postings, and on certain occasions I think he has a point. Even then, most of the time I think he’s working off of some kind of principled rationale, and would change his mind on what needs to be done, if he saw the need for that.

You on the other hand simply follow the path of Coulter, which is to loudly claim something, and then stubbornly claim its the truth without explanation or reasoning. That’s not bold. That’s not hard-hitting. That’s not brutal honesty. It’s hiding behind loudness and shocking behavior in order to avoid actually having to convince people of things by appealing to evidence and common principles.

And you know what? I consider that to be neither honest, nor bold, nor persuasive. Perhaps it deadens questioning and inquiry into what one really thinks and believe, making it easier to just do as one pleases. But it also deadens the philosophy itself, leaving one a mouthpiece for increasingly inconsistent and incoherent views.

So why, other than your evident dislike for the Liberals, do you think Ann Coulter is justified in making such strong, and as yet unfounded claims?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 14, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #157911

Adrrienne & KansasDem,

What incentive do people that can effectively start discussion and debate have by doing so in the midst of screaming children, or their adult equivelents? The “Trolls”, both Blue and Red tend to make any considerate discussion impossible. I don’t see how a person can be faulted by opting out of a discussion that loses its merit in the first 5 posts, or turns into incoherent or rhetorical babblings.

In my opinion Norby is completely justified in leaving this post, or for that matter any of the posts that those who consistently demonstrate a prefererence for riot coinhabit.

My hope is that the designers of WatchBlog find some manner to filter noise at the user level, or that those who’ve gone on to find more respectable forums remember the intellect left behind.

Posted by: DOC at June 14, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #157912

You want to get a better grip on Ann? Read Al Franken’s book “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”. He does a bang-up job on her, and unlike most of the Republican pundit shills on Fox News and other equally repugnant sources, his are so well documented and researched that it isn’t funny.

Sure, he’s a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. Sure, he thinks that Bill Clinton, by far, is the greatest post-war President we’ve had thus far (and I’m inclined to believe him on a lot of points), and he has other traits that Republicans just love to hate. One of the things they do hate, however, is just how much in-depth he goes into things.

He stomped that beastly bitch, and it was such a massive bitch slap (pun definitely intended) that I had to follow up myself on his sources. It even cost me a bit of green, but I did it. And, as you might expect, Al doesn’t lie. He just doesn’t do it. When he quotes something, by God, it’s a real quote, documented and footnoted and not taken out of context.

Ann is such a waste of a human being, it’s not even funny. However, lots of people will still jump right on her bandwagon (among other parts, I’m led to believe), either oblivious to her outright deceit and hatred or knowing but corrupt. Either way, the effect is the same in the end:

Act like sheep, expect to get sheared. And don’t come baaaaaaaa’ing when you run to us naked and cold. You deserve what you get.

Posted by: joshuacrime at June 14, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #157913

By “filter” I do not mean censor. I am suggesting the ability for each reader to block and unblock other posts from thier particular view.

Posted by: DOC at June 14, 2006 11:16 PM
Comment #157931

DOC-
1)The Entries here can have hundreds of responses, some as long as the article themselves, if not longer. Endurance is not a problem for most readers.

2)Watchblog allows people to express whatever views they want, so long as they observe the “Critique the message” rule. Filtering would defeat the purposes of an open forum like this. Part of the point is that one’s views get tested to destruction by the other side.

3)People who get personal get kicked off, so no true troll, as we see on other sites, can maintain shop for long

4)Trolls tend to lose interest over time, since they can’t maintain their personally aimed rants at anybody in particular.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2006 12:13 AM
Comment #157958

SD - Thanks for responding with something other than the equivelant of a recipe for Potato Salad.

Point 1) only serves only to quantify user interest and verbosity, with a combined insinuation of the inability of some to endure the weaker elements. (see 1.2)

Point 2.1) allows people to express whatever views they want, but does not specifically enforce the “Critique the message” rule as they also condone views that are impertinent to the message.

Point 2.2) is admirable, and I bow to the efforts that have made it possible.

Point 2.3) allows a view to be tested to destruction by the other side, except in the circumstance that one is forced to deal with both active debate on “said view” from the other side and active distraction from “said view” by no identifiable side.

Combining points 3) and 4) A Troll is defined as one whose focus of attack is personal, while I’ve heard no definition of one whose focus intends to impersonally destroy communication through calculated diversion.

Again, sincere thanks for responding to my concern. You’ve explained your view of what is intended, and I’ve responded with my view of what appears.

Posted by: DOC at June 15, 2006 2:07 AM
Comment #158025

Well the fight that the liberal democrats thought would occur lastnight on Jay Leno was a T.K.O. for Ann Coulter George Carlin did’nt even throw a punch.He sat there like he was cracked out and let Ann Coulter be Ann Coulter.As usual Ann was very sexy in the way she dismissed The liberal talking points as if it were childs play.And what the liberals really had to hate was when Ann got several standing ovations.So Ann wins again big time.Thank you Ann for being Ann.

Posted by: lookingout at June 15, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #158036

Stephen-Anns remarks were made to bring focus to the way liberal democrats use people who had great losses on 911.They use them to spout their political veiws knowing the political correct thing to do is overlook their spewing of bullshit because they are concidered victims.It will not work in the future because Ann Coulter took a stand.Is’nt She Sexy?

Posted by: lookingout at June 15, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #158039

I see, so Carlin’s plan, had he not been so completely awed by Coulter, would be to sell his latest Children’s movie by letting Coulter have it in his usually profane style?

Sit them across the table from each other when they’re not trying to sell books or movies.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 15, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #158044

And Carlin would still be cracked out and Ann would still kick Ass!!

Posted by: lookingout at June 15, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #158095

You can’t take Ann Coulter’s comments seriously. She is a woman after all. And as such, cannot hold any significant influence on Republicans, right?

Posted by: esimonson at June 15, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #158104

esimonson - I wouldn’t be too sure about that, according to Wikipedia the official release date of this book was June 6, 2006. Perhaps she is meant for something much bigger.

Posted by: DOC at June 15, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #158229

“Is’nt She Sexy?”

Not only no, but Hell No!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at June 15, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #158255

I don’t understand why democrats get so mad at Ann Coulter. Unlike Pat Robinson who comes across as crazy, she looks relatively sane and makes republicans look mean spirited and ugly.

How is this a bad thing?

Adrienne, great link to the Rude Pundit BTW. Eeeew…but so funny.

Posted by: Nikita at June 15, 2006 10:58 PM
Comment #158256

Pat Robertson not Robinson. I knew that didn’t sound right.

Posted by: Nikita at June 15, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #159133

lookinout,

“Liberals seem to have more respect for the Micheal Moorers and Micheal Jacksons of the world then they have for the fighting men and women who are willing to die for the freedom of other people in other countries.”

What proof do you have that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rove are patriots and the Dems are not? When the day came for all of the above mentions Reps to fight for their country and show their true American Spirit, they cowered in the light of day. They were not willing to put their lives on the line to fight for a free Vietnam now were they? HUM… Bush checked the box, not for overseas duty…

I hate the fact that Bill Clinton protested the Vietnam war and spoke badly about the US while on foriegn soil. But at least Bill Clinton had the balls to take a stand and talk about it. Bush and company spoke in support of Vietnam and how important it was, but none of them had the balls to really mean it. Talk is cheap. It is easy for Bush to wage war when he has nothing to fear. Why do you think we haven’t done anything to South Korea yet? Could it be that we may actually have a little something to fear from them? Iraq was no threat to the US, even Bush has admitted to that fact now.

As for honesty for which you speak about in such revelence to Bush. Bush leid about Saddam trying to purchase Yellow cake from Africa. He knew at the time that statement wasn’t true, yet stated it as fact in his State of the Union Address in 2002. He lied when he said he would punish anyone in his administration whom leaked the CIA name of Valire Plam to the media.

I agree politicians lie on both sides of the isle, but to say Dems are not turstworhty because they lie, but Reps are trustworthy when they lie is just total blindness. The great “Fair and Balanced, Fox News” is ripe full of liers on their airways, convicted or admitted liers. Olie North has his own show, War Stories. This for a man who lied under oath to congress in Iran Contra, and was convicted… Newty Boy, who was speaker of the house and voted to oust Clinton from office because he had an affair with a lady out of wedlock. He then had to resign his position due to the facts that he was also having affairs with his secretary while married to his wife. The list goes on and on.

No party can take the moral high ground on ethics and truth. We have to judge each person as an individual first and party second, in my opinion. I will vote for a Rep if he is a better man than the Dems put up. For example, I did vote for Bush in 2000, voting out of party for the second time in my life in a presidental election. However, I had time to judge Bush form 2000/2004 and found that he too was not trustworthy and a lier. I didn’t know if Kerry was any better or not, but at least he fought for the US and checked the box for overseas tour of duty. At least he served during war time and I felt he would have a truly better feel for how to get out of the mess we are in.
One more thing about Bush that the Reps are spewing all over the place. How great the economy is. Let’s not forget the stock market still today is not where it was when Bush took office. He still has a negative when you look at the market the day he took office and today. He is almost back to break even point. Until he gets that market above 11,600 he is still a negative market president. Consumer trust is still not good even with the admin touting a great market. The only thing I can think of that would fuel this concern is the public too no longer trusts what information comes from the White House…

Posted by: Rusty at June 19, 2006 1:43 PM
Post a comment