POL: Why Do You Hate Conservatives, Ann Coulter?

[CamEdwards]

So Ann Coulter's getting a ton of deserved criticism for what she said in her new book. Talking about the "Witches of East Brunswick" (9/11 Familes for Peace), she writes that these ladies are enjoying their fame more than the enjoyed their husbands.


"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."


I guess every political movement needs its equivalent to Michael Moore or Ted Rall, but damn it woman, recognize that you went way over the line and you need to apologize.

[Subby]

Plus she looks like a kneecap with hair :)

Seriously - she and Michael Moore are more alike than they'll ever want to admit.

[oliegirl]

So Ann Coulter's getting a ton of deserved criticism for what she said in her new book. Talking about the "Witches of East Brunswick" (9/11 Familes for Peace), she writes that these ladies are enjoying their fame more than the enjoyed their husbands.



I guess every political movement needs its equivalent to Michael Moore or Ted Rall, but damn it woman, recognize that you went way over the line and you need to apologize.

I am pretty sure I remember reading on this board about a 9/11 widow going through hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars by throwing parties, taking crazy vacations, etc. I'm sure that this specific case that was being reported is not the only instance. I'm not a huge fan of Ann Coulter but I'd reserve judgement until I read for myself in which context this comment is used. If it is said to make a point about a specific woman/women who did this kind of spending - then I would say it's justified.

[Buccaneer]

Plus she looks like a kneecap with hair :)

Seriously - she and Michael Moore are more alike than they'll ever want to admit.

And red and blue are much more alike than the media and politicians ever want to admit.

[CamEdwards]

I am pretty sure I remember reading on this board about a 9/11 widow going through hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars by throwing parties, taking crazy vacations, etc. I'm sure that this specific case that was being reported is not the only instance. I'm not a huge fan of Ann Coulter but I'd reserve judgement until I read for myself in which context this comment is used. If it is said to make a point about a specific woman/women who did this kind of spending - then I would say it's justified.

She's talking specifically about four widows who've been very politically active on the far left since 9/11. I think they've got some incredibly wacked out ideas, and I think their politics are dead wrong, but saying that someone is "enjoying" the death of their spouse... no, I can't go there. Even the woman who was throwing wild parties, etc. would rather have her husband back, I'd bet.

It just all boils down to the word "enjoy". She might have had a legit point about the cult of the victim, but she just completely obliterated it by using that particular word to describe what these women are feeling.

[Groundhog]

It just all boils down to the word "enjoy". She might have had a legit point about the cult of the victim, but she just completely obliterated it by using that particular word to describe what these women are feeling.

Exactly. By using the word "enjoy", it instantly makes the statement offensive, and paints these widows as monsters.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't really rack her for the comment, I've had the same impression of some of the people I've seen in various stories post 9/11 and expressed pretty much the same sentiment, albeit with different words. Once again, Ann says what I'm already thinking & says it better than I could have.

[Ksyrup]

It just all boils down to the word "enjoy". She might have had a legit point about the cult of the victim, but she just completely obliterated it by using that particular word to describe what these women are feeling.

Yep. I get what she's trying to say, or at least how she explained it later, that these women were using a personal tragedy to advance a political cause. I think she would have been better served by saying that they were "taking advantage" of their husbands' deaths, or something along those lines. Because that's what they are doing, in my mind - playing on people's sympathies over their personal 9/11 tragedy to influence people against Bush. Similar to Christopher Reeve's "I'm paralyzed, vote Democrat" speech at the DNC in 96, I think it was.

[CamEdwards]

Yep. I get what she's trying to say, or at least how she explained it later, that these women were using a personal tragedy to advance a political cause. I think she would have been better served by saying that they were "taking advantage" of their husbands' deaths, or something along those lines. Because that's what they are doing, in my mind - playing on people's sympathies over their personal 9/11 tragedy to influence people against Bush. Similar to Christopher Reeve's "I'm paralyzed, vote Democrat" speech at the DNC in 96, I think it was.

Take advantage works much better in my opinion, although maybe it doesn't sell as many books.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Hmm, I guess just because you have had a personal tragedy, you are not allowed to speak your thoughts on a subject related to that tragedy, and instead are labelled as an advantage taker and revelling in a family member's death? That's just fu#$ed up.

Why not just address the substance of the views expressed by the widows rather than attack them. Par for the course however for that woman.

[sabotai]

Here's an article on it. She says a LOT more than just the one line Cam quoted.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/424405p-358034c.html

Here's a highlight:

In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," the uncompromisingly right-wing Coulter writes the Jersey Girls have no right to criticize President Bush or any of the failures that led to the terror attacks.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis," Coulter writes.

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . .

"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."

[oliegirl]

Take advantage works much better in my opinion, although maybe it doesn't sell as many books.

I'll agree that she could have picked a better word, but I have had the same thought about some of the widows or victims families. I've had the same thought about other people too...what I call "professional mourners". For people who live normal lives and who are related to people who die normal deaths, you mourn and then life goes on...you never forget that person but your entire life doesn't revolve around them. There are some people from 9/11 and other tragedies (Ron Goldman's father comes to mind) who never seem to move on and make a "career" of mourning their loved one in the public eye. I'm not saying they are bad people or that the way they are handling their grief is wrong, just that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[Subby]

Sorry, but Ron Goldman is a terrible example. If someone killed your child and then got off scot-free, and then publicly mocked you in the years following, how would you react?

[Anthony]

I can't really rack her for the comment, I've had the same impression of some of the people I've seen in various stories post 9/11 and expressed pretty much the same sentiment, albeit with different words. Once again, Ann says what I'm already thinking & says it better than I could have.

i've felt the same way - particularly with these retarded Families of 9/11 Victims type organizations - however i wouldn't go as far as say these 4 women enjoy the deaths of their husbands (and thus the attention they've garnered). her comments are pure Hell Atlanticish. it's ok for me to say the things i say cuz i'm not selling any books. i'm not in the public eye. but her comments reak of someone going for the Howard Stern intentional controversy.

but these organizations have an awful habit of putting their 2 cents in every friggin issue, and have helped contribute to the delay in rebuilding downtown NYC. don't even get me started on this nonsense.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sorry, but Ron Goldman is a terrible example. If someone killed your child and then got off scot-free, and then publicly mocked you in the years following, how would you react?

Actually I thought Goldman was a pretty good example. I'd rather have O.J. as a month long house guest than spend 10 minutes with any of the glory hound relatives of Brown or Simpson.

But hey, I'm that rarest of rare birds: a white guy who doesn't think O.J. killed either one of them. (I think he knows exactly who did, but I've never believed it was him).

[oliegirl]

Sorry, but Ron Goldman is a terrible example. If someone killed your child and then got off scot-free, and then publicly mocked you in the years following, how would you react?


I would deal with it in a private manner, not go in front of any and every news/media camera I could find. Shit happens...I'm not saying it would be easy, but his loss isn't any more or less painful that the 9/11 victims families loss, and the vast majority of them have moved on with their lives.

[cartman]

But I'm certain that she had no problem at all with the 9/11 victims that attended and spoke out at the Republican convention two years ago, and appeared in Bush campaign ads. They weren't using their loss to advance a political cause either? Oh wait, that's right, they are on her side, so it's A-OK for them to do it, so they get a free pass. If Michael Moore or Al Franken had said from the left what she is now saying, people would be calling for their heads on a spike.

I think the people who suffered the loss of a loved one in the 9/11 attacks should be able to say whatever they want to say, regardless if you agree with they are saying, or if you think they are bat-shiat crazy . They paid a hell of price to form their opinions. Not like some insulated, partisan hack who is just trying to sell some books.

[Bubba Wheels]

But I'm certain that she had no problem at all with the 9/11 victims that attended and spoke out at the Republican convention two years ago, and appeared in Bush campaign ads. They weren't using their loss to advance a political cause either? Oh wait, that's right, they are on her side, so it's A-OK for them to do it, so they get a free pass. If Michael Moore or Al Franken had said from the left what she is now saying, people would be calling for their heads on a spike.

I think the people who suffered the loss of a loved one in the 9/11 attacks should be able to say whatever they want to say, regardless if you agree with they are saying, or if you think they are bat-shiat crazy . They paid a hell of price to form their opinions. Not like some insulated, partisan hack who is just trying to sell some books.

Cartman, your an idiot. Just pick one political thread, anyone, and try to resist posting your inane commentary for once. You have to be one of the lesser intelligent jokes in this forum, every opinion based on feeling, devoid of fact and streaming like so much diarhea spread everywhere.

[Crapshoot]

Cartman, your an idiot. Just pick one political thread, anyone, and try to resist posting your inane commentary for once. You have to be one of the lesser intelligent jokes in this forum, every opinion based on shear feeling, devoid of fact and streaming like so much diarhea spread everywhere.

Listen, you piece of trailer trash horse shit, the idea of you calling anyone an idiot is absurd - especially when the concept of punctuation, and the difference between "your" and "you're" seems unclear to you. Fuck off - seriously.

[Bubba Wheels]

Listen, you piece of trailer trash horse shit, the idea of you calling anyone an idiot is absurd - especially when the concept of punctuation, and the difference between "your" and "you're" seems unclear to you. Fuck off - seriously.

Oh yeah, you're the other one. Thanks for chiming in, hershey squirt. That's what a 'Crapshoot' is anyway, right?

[clintl]

Well - this thread went into the crapper in a hurry.

[cartman]

Cartman, your an idiot. Just pick one political thread, anyone, and try to resist posting your inane commentary for once. You have to be one of the lesser intelligent jokes in this forum, every opinion based on feeling, devoid of fact and streaming like so much diarhea spread everywhere.

LOL. How is that list coming along? You know, the one where you were going to come back and report on all of my postings, and how completely wrong I was on every one of them? We are all still eagerly awaiting your findings.

[oliegirl]

Well - this thread went into the crapper in a hurry.


Perfect wording considering the last 3 posts contained diarhea, horse shit and hershey squirt...

[Bubba Wheels]

Well - this thread went into the crapper in a hurry.

Like you were really going to get any real discourse from the usual conservative-bashing squishy pinkos in the first place.

[Crapshoot]

Here's an article on it. She says a LOT more than just the one line Cam quoted.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/424405p-358034c.html

Here's a highlight:

In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," the uncompromisingly right-wing Coulter writes the Jersey Girls have no right to criticize President Bush or any of the failures that led to the terror attacks.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis," Coulter writes.

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . .

"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."

I don't "get" Ann Coulter- I really don't. She's not particularly intelligent, she's not particularly good looking, and isn't like she represents any degree of sanity. How this woman once worked for the National Review I'm unsure - of course, her path since then (Frontpage.com - brown person bashing at its finest) has led her to completely abandon the pretense of even knowing what she's talking about. Its amusing - she's probably far less of a nut than it appears- the extreme right wing schtick just makes her more money.

[cartman]

Like you were really going to get any real discourse from the usual conservative-bashing squishey pinkos in the first place.

Did you even bother to notice who started this thread? I believe that person's day job is as a conservative radio show host.

[Bubba Wheels]

LOL. How is that list coming along? You know, the one where you were going to come back and report on all of my postings, and how completely wrong I was on every one of them? We are all still eagerly awaiting your findings.

I placed it up that dark tunnel you keep your head in...keep looking, I'm sure you'll find it!

[SFL Cat]

I think Coulter went way beyond good taste with some of her comments. As HA said, I think she intentionally might be going over-the-top with these statements to generate controversy and hopefully spur book sales. But even though she might make a valid point, she is stepping over a line that shouldn't be crossed, even in political discourse. Leave that kind of sh*t to Michael Moore.

[Bubba Wheels]

Did you even bother to notice who started this thread? I believe that person's day job is as a conservative radio show host.

Re-read first post regarding you.

[sabotai]

Damn. Is Bubba trying to be boxed? Or is he just doing his Ann Coulter impersonation?

[Buccaneer]

Crapshoot, would you say the same thing about left-wing nutjobs as well?

[Bubba Wheels]

Damn. Is Bubba trying to be boxed? Or is he just doing his Ann Coulter impersonation?

Skydog don't have the intestinal fortitude for that. Let Cartman and Crapper call their daddy to protect them.

[KWhit]

Oh yeah, you're the other one. Thanks for chiming in, hershey squirt. That's what a 'Crapshoot' is anyway, right?

You're all class, Bubba.

[Crapshoot]

Crapshoot, would you say the same thing about left-wing nutjobs as well?

Sure - though I'm not sure why any sort of equivalence is needed between Coulter's deeds and someone on the "left" - her stupidity stands out. If you're referring to the bit about "overplaying the extremism" - that, I have no doubt is common across the board - we call it "marketing."

[sabotai]

Skydog don't have the intestinal fortitude for that.

OOOOOH YEAH! SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM! CAN YA DIG IT!?

[Crapshoot]

Like you were really going to get any real discourse from the usual conservative-bashing squishy pinkos in the first place.

I must say, I haven't been called a squishy pinko before - this is a new one. What makes a non squishy pinko though - are they all squishy ? Are some "harder" than others ? These are questions that need answers!

[Bubba Wheels]

You're all class, Bubba.

Your absolutely right...should have responded the way Crapper did...oh yeah, i did!

[cartman]

Re-read first post regarding you.
Ok, let me break it down, step by step.

Cartman, your an idiot.
F for grammar. I guess you are a product of the horrible public school systems you are always complaining about.

Just pick one political thread, anyone, and try to resist posting your inane commentary for once.
I don't post in all that many political threads. I only chime in where I think maybe I can provide a different perspective. If you go back and look at any of the political compass surveys we've done on the board in the past, I'm usually right in the middle, neither right nor left. I've made it clear many times I consider myself more a libertarian, than a Democrat or Republican.

At least you used the correct form of 'your' in this sentence.

You have to be one of the lesser intelligent jokes in this forum,
So this means I'm still an intelligent joke, just not one of the highest order?

every opinion based on feeling, devoid of fact and streaming like so much diarhea spread everywhere.
Isn't an opinion just that, something based on feelings? More points off for grammar for the misseplling of diarreah.

Anything I missed? I think I went over this pretty well, and I don't see anything there where it shows that you read who created the thread.

[Bubba Wheels]

OOOOOH YEAH! SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM! CAN YA DIG IT!?

Geez, someone dig Blackador up and you can have your usual 'circle of friends' gathering! How special! HA!

[panerd]

Bubba Wheels is an idiot. He is JIMGa without the endearing qualities.

[Grammaticus]

She's talking specifically about four widows who've been very politically active on the far left since 9/11. I think they've got some incredibly wacked out ideas, and I think their politics are dead wrong, but saying that someone is "enjoying" the death of their spouse... no, I can't go there. Even the woman who was throwing wild parties, etc. would rather have her husband back, I'd bet.

It just all boils down to the word "enjoy". She might have had a legit point about the cult of the victim, but she just completely obliterated it by using that particular word to describe what these women are feeling.
Would it make you feel any better if she said they were enjoying the "results" or "outcome" of their husbands death?

[Bubba Wheels]

Bubba Wheels is an idiot. He is JIMGa without the endearing qualities.

Yet another 'squishy circle' member. You handful should all have secret decoder rings.

BTW, 'idiot' was already used as a descriptive once in this thread...pick another like...bonehead...as in 'like the bonehead that you are!" But then again you 'squishy' types are not known for you're 'originality."

[kcchief19]

POL: Why Do You Hate Conservatives, Bubba Wheels?
Fixed.

[panerd]

As for the initial topic. I actually agree with Ann Coulter on something. These women has been compensated more than fairly. I feel for them and don't wish death on anyone or their loved ones, but enough is enough. Locally in St. Louis a young, attractive, blond, white women was killed over the weekend and you would think by the front page continous coverage the last week that the president was shot. It is a tradegy and if I knew her I would be grieving even more, but people die. (Now there are sex offender ties, so I am sure we are going to have another week of coverage maybe even national)

But the fact is that these husbands could have died in car accidents, the building could have caught fire, they could have been robbed and shot. They died from a terror attack. Life sucks sometimes. Deal with it, everyone else does.

[oliegirl]

Yet another 'squishy circle' member. You handful should all have secret decoder rings.


From a female perspective, no man should want to be a member of the squishy circle...I'd suggest you all abandon this thread immediately and regain your manhood in one of the sports threads.

[vtbub]

Ann Coulter=Dennis Rodman.

It's all about selling books.

[Glengoyne]

Actually I thought Goldman was a pretty good example. I'd rather have O.J. as a month long house guest than spend 10 minutes with any of the glory hound relatives of Brown or Simpson.

But hey, I'm that rarest of rare birds: a white guy who doesn't think O.J. killed either one of them. (I think he knows exactly who did, but I've never believed it was him).

Moron.


Sorry I couldn't resist.:D

[panerd]

Yet another 'squishy circle' member. You handful should all have secret decoder rings.

BTW, 'idiot' was already used as a descriptive once in this thread...pick another like...bonehead...as in 'like the bonehead that you are!" But then again you 'squishy' types are not known for you're 'originality."

I haven't really even befriended any of the guys you speak of so I don't know how I got in the squishy circle. I know Cartman from his BBCF league, but that is about it. And why would they want to hang out with a child molester anyways? (Or so I was told by Bubba Wheels in his 4th grade social studies textbook explanation of Jessica's law a few days ago)

[Buccaneer]

Ann Coulter=Dennis Rodman=Al Franken=Rush Limbaugh=Michael Moore=Friedman=Savage=Hannity=O'Reilly.......

It's all about selling books/movies.

Enhanced.

[Axxon]

From a female perspective, no man should want to be a member of the squishy circle...I'd suggest you all abandon this thread immediately and regain your manhood in one of the sports threads.

Have to tell you that your whole "anyone who shows emotions should just get over it when I'm tired of hearing it" stance shows you have more testosterone than Bubba has ever dreamed of having.

I mean seriously, I'm cynical as hell and dislike people enough to not get upset when one dies ( this thread really illustrates why ) but damn, even I give the benefit of the doubt that there may be some people not as cold and heartless as some of the folks in this thread, myself included.

Guess I was wrong. Doesn't feel good to be though.

Hey, I have an idea. Lets just have a group meeting at a funeral home and mock the mourners. That'd pretty much feel good wouldn't it?

[astrosfan64]

I think Bubba is just venting, because his bad ass game of Max Football was just a bust :(.

Its ok Bubba.

[vtbub]

Enhanced.

Rodman looks better in a dress than the rest though. :)

[Axxon]

I think Bubba is just venting, because his bad ass game of Max Football was just a bust :(.

Its ok Bubba.

He should be happy, it's probably the closest he's ever gotten to a bust in his life.

[Bubba Wheels]

Transcript from the old 'Politically Incorrect' Show with Bill Mahr:

Gary Shandling:"Knock, Knock."

Cato Calin: "Who's there?"

Gary Shandling "Oh come on, you know who it is!"

[Buccaneer]

Rodman looks better in a dress than the rest though. :)

That's true but you have to do what some mention in the AAE Hot chicks: look only from the neck down. Except in Rodman's case, it had better be one of those old-school Mormon dresses.

[Bubba Wheels]

He should be happy, it's probably the closest he's ever gotten to a bust in his life.

Coming from a homosexual like yourself, them's pretty strong words!

[Maple Leafs]

I can't really rack her for the comment, I've had the same impression of some of the people I've seen in various stories post 9/11 and expressed pretty much the same sentiment, albeit with different words. Once again, Ann says what I'm already thinking & says it better than I could have.
I'd just like to mention that when I first read this, I was reading the posts and only half paying attention to who wrote what. Out of the corner of my eye, I read "JonInMiddleGA" as "John Galt" for some reason.

Needless to say, there was cause for significant confusion.

[Axxon]

Coming from a homosexual like yourself, them's pretty strong words!

Hmm, who mentioned anything about homosexual? I just can't see you attracting any creature that has a choice about the matter. Since I don't think you're a rapist it leads me to believe you go the celibate route though not by choice of course.

But, since your mind is on the state of my dick, I guess I misjudged your orientation. Don't worry sweetums. Your god will still love you.

[WVUFAN]

I have to agree with the Coulter bashers here -- if she had a point, there's better ways of making it. I agree -- if one of the liberal pundits had made a statement like this, we would all be calling for their heads right now.

She should be no exception. She should apologize.

[Bubba Wheels]

Hmm, who mentioned anything about homosexual? I just can't see you attracting any creature that has a choice about the matter. Since I don't think you're a rapist it leads me to believe you go the celibate route though not by choice of course.

But, since your mind is on the state of my dick, I guess I misjudged your orientation. Don't worry sweetums. Your god will still love you.

See, when you said 'bust' i took that for 'breast,' and since homosexuals don't care for 'breasts'...oh nevermind. No intentional disrespect meant to 'homosexuals,' just that they don't like breasts, you know? Think you do!;)

[Ben E Lou]

Coming from a homosexual like yourself, them's pretty strong words!As HNIC, I still reserve the right, when I can't find any other mods immediately, to do a unilateral boxing. I'm going to be very busy the next few days, so I'll let the mods sort out the amount of time.

[Wolfpack]

I suspect that by the time I see this board again sometime tomorrow that things will have changed for some posters given the current tenor of debate.

I also expect to see a thread complaining about it.

[cartman]

As HNIC, I still reserve the right, when I can't find any other mods immediately, to do a unilateral boxing. I'm going to be very busy the next few days, so I'll let the mods sort out the amount of time.

LOL. We should have a public poll on this one. :D

[WVUFAN]

I also expect to see a thread complaining about it.

Not from me. SkyDog did the right thing, IMO.

[cartman]

For the record, I wasn't the one that peed in BW's Cheerios today. Not sure why he came out swinging on me, then proceeded to flail at everyone else.

[Maple Leafs]

As HNIC, I still reserve the right, when I can't find any other mods immediately, to do a unilateral boxing. I'm going to be very busy the next few days, so I'll let the mods sort out the amount of time.
Good call. A board like this has no room for people who throw around gay terms as insults.

[Axxon]

Good call. A board like this has no room for people who throw around gay terms as insults.

So, that's the only insult Bubba was throwing? I suppose he was here to advance the discussion? Please, don't even act like you don't know what just happened here.

[WVUFAN]

It wasn't what he said, it was the way it was said. The type of insults he was throwing out wasn't the point.

[Franklinnoble]

For starters, I have no problem with what Coulter said. If you're going to make a public spectacle of yourself, you'd better be prepared for that sort of thing, and then some. The fact is, these "victims" have achieved wealth and status, and haven't exactly tried to avoid the public eye.

Oh, and I don't really think Cam is a conservative. Just my opinion. No offense intended or anything.

I generally have no problem with Bubba's point of view, but he did come out with guns blazing. That said, I think everyone else escalated it pretty quick. I have no problem with his boxing, but I think someone needs to take a hard look at the responses that were made. I don't think any of his detractors really took the high ground here.

[NoMyths]

As HNIC, I still reserve the right, when I can't find any other mods immediately, to do a unilateral boxing. I'm going to be very busy the next few days, so I'll let the mods sort out the amount of time.
Well done, Ben.

[timmynausea]

Bubba gets it.

[Crapshoot]

Oh, and I don't really think Cam is a conservative.
.

Franklin - "who" is conservative in your book ?

[Axxon]

For starters, I have no problem with what Coulter said. If you're going to make a public spectacle of yourself, you'd better be prepared for that sort of thing, and then some. The fact is, these "victims" have achieved wealth and status, and haven't exactly tried to avoid the public eye.

Oh, and I don't really think Cam is a conservative. Just my opinion. No offense intended or anything.

I generally have no problem with Bubba's point of view, but he did come out with guns blazing. That said, I think everyone else escalated it pretty quick. I have no problem with his boxing, but I think someone needs to take a hard look at the responses that were made. I don't think any of his detractors really took the high ground here.

I love irony. Someone who stands by Coulter insulting people she doesn't know then chides people for not taking the high road. No better example can be made.

[Franklinnoble]

Franklin - "who" is conservative in your book ?

This thread's been jacked enough as it is. I think Cam's a moderate that plays to whatever audience he happens to have. Enough said.

[KWhit]

As HNIC, I still reserve the right, when I can't find any other mods immediately, to do a unilateral boxing. I'm going to be very busy the next few days, so I'll let the mods sort out the amount of time.

Is "forever" an option?

[Young Drachma]

Actually I thought Goldman was a pretty good example. I'd rather have O.J. as a month long house guest than spend 10 minutes with any of the glory hound relatives of Brown or Simpson.

But hey, I'm that rarest of rare birds: a white guy who doesn't think O.J. killed either one of them. (I think he knows exactly who did, but I've never believed it was him).

I think O.J. bumbling over the past few years proves that he couldn't have killed Nicole and Ron Goldman. He wouldn't have wanted to get all of his clothes dirty. The guy spends his days and nights playing golf. But yeah, he probably knows what sort of shady characters Nicole was involved with (given her drug use) and probably has a hunch, but out of respect for her (weird, no?) he won't come out and clear his own name and never has.

But back on topic...

I agree with what someone said earlier. I don't really get Ann Coulter either. She's clearly not smart. She was on FOX last night discussing her book with Sean Hannity and he asked her about herself. She had the hardest time talking about what her moral core was and couldn't articulate it in any real way, beyond saying that she was Christian and giving some microwavable answer.

But I guess because she's a leggy blonde -- who looks like a man, but I digress -- people will listen because the conservative movement is mostly attributed to old white dudes who want to tell us how to live our lives.

And I'm not any sort of liberal, either. I just hate these caricatures that are self-appointed spokespersons of what it means to be conservative.

[Franklinnoble]

I love irony. Someone who stands by Coulter insulting people she doesn't know then chides people for not taking the high road. No better example can be made.

The irony here is people getting on their high horse about Bubba ending up in the box, when their behavior was just as dispicable. Somehow, it's ok, just because Bubba started it. Whatever.

[Wolfpack]

Hmm...guess I didn't have to wait until the morning. :D

[WVUFAN]

The irony here is people getting on their high horse about Bubba ending up in the box, when their behavior was just as dispicable. Somehow, it's ok, just because Bubba started it. Whatever.

There's such a thing as an appropriate response -- Bubba Wheels did start this -- and for seemingly no reason on what was until then an interesting and respectable discussion -- and made it personal. I can't say I would have done anything different than Axxon did. Heck, I think he and Cartman were a lot more civil than I would have been. So I don't think any fault can be placed on them.

Appropriate response. That's what SkyDog did in this instance also.

[timmynausea]

I'm pretty sure we just witnessed Bubba's kamikaze mission in this thread. He was trying to restore at least some honor to his family by going out in a blaze of glory... or a blaze of something, at least.

[Franklinnoble]

There's such a thing as an appropriate response -- Bubba Wheels did start this -- and for seemingly no reason on what was until then an interesting and respectable discussion -- and made it personal. I can't say I would have done anything different than Axxon did. Heck, I think he and Cartman were a lot more civil than I would have been. So I don't think any fault can be placed on them.

Appropriate response. That's what SkyDog did in this instance also.

Cartman was anything but civil.

Here is Bubba's first post in the thread:

Cartman, your an idiot. Just pick one political thread, anyone, and try to resist posting your inane commentary for once. You have to be one of the lesser intelligent jokes in this forum, every opinion based on feeling, devoid of fact and streaming like so much diarhea spread everywhere.

Yeah, he's getting a little personal. He calls Cartman an idiot, and compares his opinion to fecal matter. Not exactly polite, but...

Here's Cartman's immediate response:

Listen, you piece of trailer trash horse shit, the idea of you calling anyone an idiot is absurd - especially when the concept of punctuation, and the difference between "your" and "you're" seems unclear to you. Fuck off - seriously.

Cartman clearly escalates the name calling here, and hardly handles himself with any class. From this point, it's all downhill...

[cartman]

Umm, the name begins with a C, but that wasn't me that replied. Look a little closer.

[Crapshoot]

Cartman was anything but civil.

Here is Bubba's first post in the thread:



Yeah, he's getting a little personal. He calls Cartman an idiot, and compares his opinion to fecal matter. Not exactly polite, but...

Here's Cartman's immediate response:



Cartman clearly escalates the name calling here, and hardly handles himself with any class. From this point, it's all downhill...

Uh Franklin- that's me, Crapshoot responding - not Cartman. :D

[Crapshoot]

Dola, I think Bubba's a blight on this board, and always has been - but that's just my take. If Jesse's a troll - Bubba's 100 times worse.

[molson]

Good call. A board like this has no room for people who throw around gay terms as insults.

Well played.

[KWhit]

You're defending Bubba's post?

Umm.... Ok.

[cartman]

I guess this means that now I'm banned from Sportsdigs.com :(

:D

[waltwal]

something not to expect

anne coulter will be appearing on o"reilley june 8th to apologize to the women she trashed.

something to beware

when hilary clinton trashed anne coulter she used the word "mean spirited". that word scares me more than hilary clinton as president does. i think the world was a better place when the word "mean spirited " was still in the womb.

did you ever have a conversation with anyone you trusted who used the word "mean spirited" seriously.

apologies????

this thread started off with the desire that anne coulter should apologize. recently a congressman from louisiana by the name of william jefferson (slightly more honest than another politician by close to the same name) was caught in a somewhat compromising situation. mean spirited members of the fbi raided his office with some provocation. have you heard any apologies from him?

let me know when you hear a SINCERE apology from someone with a zip code that is within 50 miles of washington d.c.- republican or democrat

[Axxon]

The irony here is people getting on their high horse about Bubba ending up in the box, when their behavior was just as dispicable. Somehow, it's ok, just because Bubba started it. Whatever.

Well, you can call them out if you want but if you don't call out Ann you're being nothing but a hypocrite. Are you a hypocrite Franklin or can you admit you don't want someone you support dropping to the level of those whom you disagree with?

[Axxon]

Cartman was anything but civil.

Here is Bubba's first post in the thread:



Yeah, he's getting a little personal. He calls Cartman an idiot, and compares his opinion to fecal matter. Not exactly polite, but...

Here's Cartman's immediate response:



Cartman clearly escalates the name calling here, and hardly handles himself with any class. From this point, it's all downhill...

Let me get this straight. His first freakin sentence is "Cartman, your an idiot." and somehow someone taking that personal is the one at fault? Do you even think about what you're saying?

Damn man, I had more respect for you than that. Cartman has to turn the other cheek but grieving widows are fair game and so is this attacker. I don't get it man. Are you really that much of a hypocrite who only cares about being on the winning team, not being true to your beliefs?

Or is it your belief that those you support can be as odious as they want and if anyone responds they're in the wrong?

[WVUFAN]

Axxom:

Personal attacks is how this whole thing started. I know we have the ability to debate without getting personal.

[cartman]

something not to expect

anne coulter will be appearing on o"reilley june 8th to apologize to the women she trashed.

...

let me know when you hear a SINCERE apology from someone with a zip code that is within 50 miles of washington d.c.- republican or democrat
Color me a cynic, but the O'Reilly Show is probably the last place the ones she is apologizing to will tune in. That's not exactly a tough environment for her, especially considering she was just on the Today Show, with an audience multiple times the size of Bill's show. We will have to see how sincere the apology is, and what how the rest of the interview goes after that to see the level of sincerity.

But maybe we will be surprised. You know it has to be bad when a VP at Fox News calls you on the carpet:

hxxp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198597,00.html


Grrr! Ann Coulter Goes Too Far
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
By Mike Straka

What a moron.

Ann Coulter, that is.

After calling a group of 9/11 widows "harpies" who seem to be "enjoying their husbands' deaths" in her new book, the conservative pundit has gone too far. She even added:

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy..."

Huh?

Ugly is the only way I can describe what Coulter has written. Now I understand why Time magazine put her on the cover a few years ago and made her look like a praying mantis. She just might be the type of creature that would eat its mate after sex.

Coulter's comments would be more understandable if they were off-the-cuff remarks on some television show. After all, she is known for shooting off about liberals and anybody else who questions the Bush administration.

But these abhorrent comments were written in a book. Books don't just hit the printing press as soon as authors submit them to a publisher. They are edited. They are read by marketing executives, agents and editors.

Surely somebody at Crown Forum, the publishing house behind Coulter's latest inflammatory tome, must have read these paragraphs and questioned whether they shouldn't just be deleted.

It was probably some marketing genius who fought to keep the words intact.

"Imagine the outrage and subsequent book sales," he might have said. In the end, that's what it's all about, isn't it? Money.

Book sales, appearances on the "Today" show, radio shows, more outlets to syndicate her column and her next book deal might be what Coulter was thinking about when she pecked at her keyboard and formed such ill-conceived thoughts.

As all commentators, writers, talk show hosts, "experts" and pundits with any type of national or local platform know, you must have an audience if you want to continue to make a living in media.

Sometimes commentator-types simply pander to their audience — and sometimes the things they say are utterly unchallenging and frankly insulting to that audience, no matter who they are.

Also, I don't know that any educated, conservative-minded person (Coulter's target demographic) would really want to hear speculation about the marital status of people who were involved in the worst terrorist attack on our nation's soil.

One thing conservatives are good at is dealing with the facts. Any type of speculation that appears in one's work without proper research and backup is quickly used against the publisher. Just ask Dan Rather.

Coulter should have known her remarks would cause controversy. But she may have underestimated how sensitive even her own audience might be to such an ignorant rant.

[Axxon]

Axxom:

Personal attacks is how this whole thing started. I know we have the ability to debate without getting personal.

I know most of us can and I think Franklin can if he wants to that's why I want him to reply. I'm not painting with a broad brush here; I just don't get how he can defend his people starting the personal attacks and with the same conscience attack those who respond.

[st.cronin]

Tom Brady > Peyton Manning

[WVUFAN]

Tom Brady > Peyton Manning

This thread is now complete. We have a Tom Brady sighting. :-)

[Axxon]

Tom Brady > Peyton Manning

> looks like a nose to me. Are you saying Tom Brady "knows" Peyton Manning?

That's probably true.

[st.cronin]

> looks like a nose to me. Are you saying Tom Brady "knows" Peyton Manning?

That's probably true.

Well, if you drop the 'k' you have an anagram for "owns".

[Axxon]

Well, if you drop the 'k' you have an anagram for "owns".

or snow. What's the significance of that one?

[astrosfan64]

I know most of us can and I think Franklin can if he wants to that's why I want him to reply. I'm not painting with a broad brush here; I just don't get how he can defend his people starting the personal attacks and with the same conscience attack those who respond.


I don't understand why Bubba called you a homosexual?

[Axxon]

I don't understand why Bubba called you a homosexual?

I don't want to talk about a guy who can't defend himself but my understanding is he took my joke "it's the closest to a bust that he'll ever get" to be a homosexual reference when I honestly wasn't making a homosexual reference.

[WVUFAN]

or snow. What's the significance of that one?

That's the environment that Brady excels and Manning doesn't.

[JeeberD]

or snow. What's the significance of that one?

It's gotta have something to do with the Tuck Rule...

[astrosfan64]

I don't want to talk about a guy who can't defend himself but my understanding is he took my joke "it's the closest to a bust that he'll ever get" to be a homosexual reference when I honestly wasn't making a homosexual reference.

I still don't get it, but I never really understood bubba to begin with, so I shouldn't be surprised.

[Axxon]

That's the environment that Brady excels and Manning doesn't.

snow = playoffs then?

[WVUFAN]

It's gotta have something to do with the Tuck Rule...

... which was a perfectly legal and correct call.

[sterlingice]

Good call. A board like this has no room for people who throw around gay terms as insults.

*snicker*

SI

[Axxon]

I still don't get it, but I never really understood bubba to begin with, so I shouldn't be surprised.

I'd wager that Bubba was worked up and was getting flack and was simply going into attack mode and his first reaction to the "not getting close to a bust" comment meant that I was saying thatn he didn't want to, which meant I was calling him a homosexual. Since this is one of his hot button issues he reacted.

Again, I don't want to put words into his mouth here or say things he can't react to so we'll have to leave it at that. That's my impression of what happened in regards to his response to me.

[Axxon]

*snicker*

SI

So everyone got this on first read but me. I got it now. :)

[sabotai]

Good call. A board like this has no room for people who throw around gay terms as insults.

Come on dude, don't be gay.

[sterlingice]

So everyone got this on first read but me. I got it now. :)

That's ok, it took me a bit, too :)

SI

[Easy Mac]

So if we can at least try to get back on topic, how is what these women are doing any different than what the president and numerous politicians do on a daily basis. A conversation can't go by without some hack who says "remember 9/11" every time there's some new bill about duck crossings.

I've never really understood the whole backlash of people who are able to get in the public eye and advance a cause they believe in. Now, what these women are doing, I can't say, but it often seems like if someone gets famous then lets out some political ideas or initiatives (and aren't entrenched in the political arena), then they're ridiculed or insulted. I guess I just don't see the harm in that.

But surely those "defending" Coulter can see the difference between her discussing their motives and her getting very personal in her attacks (calling them witches, saying they were going to get divorced...). There's class, then there's people like that.

[MJ4H]

Wow what a trainwreck.

[Axxon]

Wow what a trainwreck.

It's what I call the "throwing yourself in front of the train to defend your heroes" theory. That causes colossal train wrecks.

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

[st.cronin]

We need more threads about Ann Coulter.

[sabotai]

So if we can at least try to get back on topic, how is what these women are doing any different than what the president and numerous politicians do on a daily basis. A conversation can't go by without some hack who says "remember 9/11" every time there's some new bill about duck crossings.

I've never really understood the whole backlash of people who are able to get in the public eye and advance a cause they believe in. Now, what these women are doing, I can't say, but it often seems like if someone gets famous then lets out some political ideas or initiatives (and aren't entrenched in the political arena), then they're ridiculed or insulted. I guess I just don't see the harm in that.

But surely those "defending" Coulter can see the difference between her discussing their motives and her getting very personal in her attacks (calling them witches, saying they were going to get divorced...). There's class, then there's people like that.

Agreed completely. If I suddenly became famous, and people started asking me for my political beliefs and had a chance to advance libertarian ideas, I'd do it. Especially if the reason I became famous was tied to political events.

Now these women might be actively seeking the media. They might fit the mold of "attention whore". But to go as far as Coulter does, simply because what they push is liberal ideas, not conservative ideas, is just disgraceful. Yes, I've seen stories of widows spending millions of dollars that they got. Yeah, they're enjoying the money they got, but as Cam said, even they would probably rather have their husbands back than have the money.

But, in the limited exposure to these women that I've had, I haven't heard anything remotely close to that with these women. They are just women who, rightly or wrongly, blame the current administration and are frustrated with what they see. They believe we are still vulnerable and not doing nearly enough to prevent another attack. They are speaking out about their beliefs.

If you disagree with them, fine. But to say they are enjoying their husband's death, and questioning the stability of their marriage, and to namecall constantly, just becuase their politics are different from yours...to me this places Coulter on a different level than Frankin or Moore or O'Rielly or Hannity.

[Subby]

Good call. A board like this has no room for people who throw around gay terms as insults.
J'taime.

[st.cronin]

Oh, and I don't really think Cam is a conservative. Just my opinion. No offense intended or anything.


By the way, I'm pretty sure that valuing people based on whether they are liberal or conservative enough was invented by Robespierre. This is not to imply any malicious intent on your part, FN - I've just thinking about Robespierre lately, and this post of yours rang some bells.

[Axxon]

Agreed completely. If I suddenly became famous, and people started asking me for my political beliefs and had a chance to advance libertarian ideas, I'd do it. Especially if the reason I became famous was tied to political events.

Thought number one, these women are taking advantage of a bas situation and using it to advance a political agenda.


Now these women might be actively seeking the media. They might fit the mold of "attention whore". But to go as far as Coulter does, simply because what they push is liberal ideas, not conservative ideas, is just disgraceful. Yes, I've seen stories of widows spending millions of dollars that they got. Yeah, they're enjoying the money they got, but as Cam said, even they would probably rather have their husbands back than have the money.

Thought number two. These women are enjoying the money and would enjoy this more than their husband back.

These things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive but enough for me to question a group of them using this as a motive.

Either you seek attention to push an agenda and use whatever means at your disposal to achieve the goal or you want cash. If you get cash, you don't need to push an agenda like this for publicity. You can buy much easier publicity.

If you want to push an agenda you don't want to be seen doing anything that would show you with another agenda no matter the temptation.

Now, one person not getting this concept fine, but we're to believe an entire group of women whose only connection is who they married fall into this category. Stretches belief to me.

[Subby]

let me know when you hear a SINCERE apology from someone with a zip code that is within 50 miles of washington d.c.- republican or democrat
I sincerely apologize for you being an assclown.

[Axxon]

By the way, I'm pretty sure that valuing people based on whether they are liberal or conservative enough was invented by Robespierre. This is not to imply any malicious intent on your part, FN - I've just thinking about Robespierre lately, and this post of yours rang some bells.

Some trivia, his brother was the first person to conceive of a series of ascii games which would be based on diving as deeply in a dungeon and retrieving a treasure and trying to return to the surface with it.

I just think Roguespierre deserves some love too. ;)

[Glengoyne]

As HNIC, I still reserve the right, when I can't find any other mods immediately, to do a unilateral boxing. I'm going to be very busy the next few days, so I'll let the mods sort out the amount of time.


Again with a label on this General Discussion forum that states that "Anything Goes", this appears to be pretty hair trigger to me. There's plenty of precedent for good natured jibes, and this one wasn't really all that bad. Hell I've seen a lot worse personal attacks go pretty well un noticed.

We're over reacting because some folks have declared themselves "sensitive" to the homosexual issue. Screw that. If your offended when someone says "that's Gay" or "You're Gay", grow some stones. This place thrived under minimal moderation, and that spirit should return.

The best mod is the invisible mod. We have too many touchy feely sensitive mods around here.

[Franklinnoble]

1. I don't consider myself an Ann Coulter "supporter" at all. I rarely read her stuff, and when I do, I often find it tedious. I'm afraid I've given the wrong impression here. All I'm saying is that I don't have a problem with someone being critical of a person or persons who have made themselves into a public figure. These "widows" are fair game. They are clearly profiting from their situation, and they show no interest in keeping a low profile. Although, to be honest, I'd sooner tune them out than waste any ink criticizing them (and thus, "feeding the trolls" - as they crave the attention, in any form). In fact, I kinda wish I'd tuned this whole thread out at this point.

2. I honestly meant no insult in saying Cam isn't conservative. I don't know why people assume I'm being offensive, or I'm saying this to do him any harm. There's nothing wrong with him being a moderate.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Again with a label on this General Discussion forum that states that "Anything Goes", this appears to be pretty hair trigger to me. There's plenty of precedent for good natured jibes, and this one wasn't really all that bad. Hell I've seen a lot worse personal attacks go pretty well un noticed.

We're over reacting because some folks have declared themselves "sensitive" to the homosexual issue. Screw that. If your offended when someone says "that's Gay" or "You're Gay", grow some stones. This place thrived under minimal moderation, and that spirit should return.

The best mod is the invisible mod. We have too many touchy feely sensitive mods around here.

Good-natured jibe!? Surely, you're joking? He jumped in with an unprovoked personal assault, and then instead of leaving it that kept it going. Maybe he would have gotten a pass if he wasn't a proven assclown and super-troll.

[oliegirl]

Have to tell you that your whole "anyone who shows emotions should just get over it when I'm tired of hearing it" stance shows you have more testosterone than Bubba has ever dreamed of having.

I mean seriously, I'm cynical as hell and dislike people enough to not get upset when one dies ( this thread really illustrates why ) but damn, even I give the benefit of the doubt that there may be some people not as cold and heartless as some of the folks in this thread, myself included.

Guess I was wrong. Doesn't feel good to be though.

Hey, I have an idea. Lets just have a group meeting at a funeral home and mock the mourners. That'd pretty much feel good wouldn't it?


You totally misinterpreted what I said, maybe I should have put a smilie or something to show that I was being funny and lighthearted (or at least attempting to be). Think squishy in the "manhood" (that's why I used that word) sense...

Anyway...I am an emotional person. I am not cold and heartless at all and I am 100% sure that all of my friends and family would agree with me. I never said that I didn't have compassion for Goldman or any of the 9/11 widows, all I said was that their behavior and need to mourn and grieve in the public eye left a bad taste in my mouth.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Ann Coulter is hideous. Horrorific. The vile ugliness begins in the inside and works it's way out. She is a horrible, ugly, evil, vile, horse-faced C U Next Tuesday of a beast. My hatred for this... thing is unconditional and burns pure and bright like the light of 10,000 suns.

That is all.

Well, no, not at all. I would have to say, my hatred burns for this... this... "thing" a little less bright than the light of 10,000 suns because she's nothing more than theater. She's like a professional wrestler. She just says crazy, stupid-ass stuff in attempt to keep herself "relevant."

[SFL Cat]

I generally have no problem with Bubba's point of view, but he did come out with guns blazing. That said, I think everyone else escalated it pretty quick. I have no problem with his boxing, but I think someone needs to take a hard look at the responses that were made. I don't think any of his detractors really took the high ground here.

True dat!

[stevew]

This is what happens when i go to bed early.

At least the Bubba boxing is a good move.

[SFL Cat]

Again with a label on this General Discussion forum that states that "Anything Goes", this appears to be pretty hair trigger to me. There's plenty of precedent for good natured jibes, and this one wasn't really all that bad. Hell I've seen a lot worse personal attacks go pretty well un noticed.

We're over reacting because some folks have declared themselves "sensitive" to the homosexual issue. Screw that. If your offended when someone says "that's Gay" or "You're Gay", grow some stones. This place thrived under minimal moderation, and that spirit should return.

The best mod is the invisible mod. We have too many touchy feely sensitive mods around here.

Hear, hear.

[Radii]

Again with a label on this General Discussion forum that states that "Anything Goes", this appears to be pretty hair trigger to me. There's plenty of precedent for good natured jibes, and this one wasn't really all that bad. Hell I've seen a lot worse personal attacks go pretty well un noticed.

We're over reacting because some folks have declared themselves "sensitive" to the homosexual issue. Screw that. If your offended when someone says "that's Gay" or "You're Gay", grow some stones. This place thrived under minimal moderation, and that spirit should return.

The best mod is the invisible mod. We have too many touchy feely sensitive mods around here.

Isn't it more of a lifetime achievement type of thing with Bubba? I honestly don't understand why he hasn't been banned for being nothing more than a political troll on this board(aside from Maximum Football humor, that is).

[John Galt]

I'd just like to mention that when I first read this, I was reading the posts and only half paying attention to who wrote what. Out of the corner of my eye, I read "JonInMiddleGA" as "John Galt" for some reason.

Needless to say, there was cause for significant confusion.

Hey, don't bring me into this train wreck of a thread. ;)

[st.cronin]

FN, I was just commenting on your putting a "value" on Cam's left-right placement - not a "value" in terms of good/bad, but a "value" like an integer. In the case of Robespierre, that value became the other value, but I know that's not what you're doing. I was just pointing out what it made me think of, is all.

[clintl]

Skydog don't have the intestinal fortitude for that. Let Cartman and Crapper call their daddy to protect them.

Wasn't Bubba's fate a foregone conclusion from this post on? I think he crossed the line long before that, but taunting SD like that pretty much sealed the deal.

[timmynausea]

Wasn't Bubba's fate a foregone conclusion from this post on? I think he crossed the line long before that, but taunting SD like that pretty much sealed the deal.

That's why I think this was a kamikaze mission. He did this expecting to be banned. "You guys don't have the balls to ban me!!"

[stevew]

I just hate that he shit all over what could have possibly have been a decent topic of discussion. And Coulter, I think i'd borderline hit that. As long as she promised to not talk.

[CamEdwards]

More talk about Ann Coulter, less talk about my political leanings. :)

As far as what Franklin said, I don't know that I'm a strict conservative. Definitely on the fiscal side of things I am, but socially I'm finding myself turning more libertarian as I get older. I blame it on Bucc's signature.

[Subby]

Oh, and I don't really think Cam is a conservative. Just my opinion. No offense intended or anything.
I thought this observation was interesting. By traditional definitions, I think Cam is every bit a conservative and that you are an extremist. Naturally anyone left of your viewpoints will seem like a moderate, etc.. but it seems like you are mis-identifying yourself.

Obviously I only have your message board posts as evidence, but that's what it seems like.

If I was making a right-to-left scale using FOFL posters, it would probably look like this:

JimGA - Dutch - Cam - Glengoyne - cartman - radii - KWhit - NoMyths - Mr. Bigglesworth

[st.cronin]

More talk about Ann Coulter, less talk about my political leanings. :)

As far as what Franklin said, I don't know that I'm a strict conservative. Definitely on the fiscal side of things I am, but socially I'm finding myself turning more libertarian as I get older. I blame it on Bucc's signature.

Off with your head!

[st.cronin]

If I was making a right-to-left scale using FOFL posters, it would probably look like this:

JimGA - Dutch - Cam - Glengoyne - cartman - radii - KWhit - NoMyths - Mr. Bigglesworth

What is the benefit of making such a scale? I'm genuinely curious.

[flere-imsaho]

She's got a book coming out. Uttering this tripe accomplishes three things:

1. It gets her fans more excited about her upcoming book, so they pre-order it if they haven't already.

2. It exposes her to new like-minded fans, who might then buy her new book (or one of the old ones).

3. It outrages some people enough to take a look at her new (or old) book just out of morbid curiosity.

It's pretty much a win-win for her. If you pulled this kind of shit on a regular basis, Cam, you'd have a slot on Fox in no time. ;)

[flere-imsaho]

What is the benefit of making such a scale? I'm genuinely curious.

It's an internet message board. We don't need reasons.

[JonInMiddleGA]

But to say they are enjoying their husband's death, and questioning the stability of their marriage, and to namecall constantly, just becuase their politics are different from yours

Just as an aside ... the examples I mentioned earlier, where I've had pretty much the same thoughts about some of the publicity seekers that Coulter expressed about these specific women, had nothing to do with their politics.

Hell, I don't recall ever hearing of the current crop specifically before now (unless they're part of one of the groups HA mentioned earlier as always being in the middle of the arguments over what to do with the WTC site).

So, at least in my case, the criticism of "professional victims" has nothing to do with their politics one way or the other.

[Subby]

What is the benefit of making such a scale? I'm genuinely curious.
I had fun making it.

You are weird.

[Drake]

You are weird.

But he's dead sexy.

[st.cronin]

But he's dead sexy.

The sexiness scale, with fofc members:

st.cronin-JoninMiddleGa-FrogMan-Hell Atlantic-Schmidty-SirFozzie-Raider's Army

[sabotai]

Isn't it more of a lifetime achievement type of thing with Bubba? I honestly don't understand why he hasn't been banned for being nothing more than a political troll on this board(aside from Maximum Football humor, that is).

Not sure that this boxing would be a lifetime achievement thing. His actions from his very first post earned that boxing alone, imo (based on boxings I've seen in the past). If he were banned, I guess it would be. Which brings the question on why he isn't. Isn't this like his 3rd or 4th trip to the penalty box?


And let me say that I am very happy to not have appeared on either Subby's or cronin's list. Although, how cronin could leave off the "rugged Bucc" or the Pumpy in the Elway Jersey is beyond me. :D

[SirFozzie]

The sexiness scale, with fofc members:

st.cronin-JoninMiddleGa-FrogMan-Hell Atlantic-Schmidty-SirFozzie-Raider's Army

Dear God, that better not being going UPWARDS.

*shudders*

[st.cronin]

hee

[SirFozzie]

Personally? I think Ann Coulter is a prowrestler. She says outrageous things to keep from being discarded as the flavor of the month. Doesn't make such statements palatable, especially this one.. "And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy..."

Real nice. Of course, Ted Rall did the same thing months ago, and got just as crucified.

Nice to see even O'Reilly and those folks say that it was over the line and that an apology should be forthcoming.

[SlapBone]

Moron.


Sorry I couldn't resist.:D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/morans.jpg

[KWhit]

Actually, I kind of think Ann Coulter is hot.

[sterlingice]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/morans.jpg

Well, he is a Cardinals fan.

SI

[Joe]

I received this in my email today, from the ACU



Dear Fellow American,

My name is Ann Coulter, but to listen to liberal pundits tell it I am Cruella DeVil, Bloody Mary and Lizzie Borden all rolled into one -- with none of the warm, welcoming, nuanced non-judgmentalism of a Hillary Clinton!

If you think I have gotten under the skin of self-styled liberal 'intellectuals' before, just wait until they read my newest soon-to-be bestseller Godless (and you can get it absolutely free just for trying HUMAN EVENTS).

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In Godless, I throw open the doors of the Church of Liberalism and show you:

* Its sacraments (abortion)
* Its holy writ (Roe v. Wade)
* Its martyrs (like Soviet spy Alger Hiss)
* Its clergy (public school teachers)
* Its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free)
* Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland)
* And its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident)



Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted. But I debunk the myth of the "rational" liberal guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method and expose the truth about Darwinian evolution that liberals refuse to confront: It is bogus science.

In Godless, you will see how liberals' absolute devotion to Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution's scientific validity and everything to do with their refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force.

The tolerant liberal suddenly becomes very intolerant when their official religion is challenged.

So, call me intolerant! But, when have I ever cared about what a liberal thought?

You can get my newest book Godless -- absolutely free -- when you start a risk-free trial to the conservative flagship publication HUMAN EVENTS. HUMAN EVENTS is my editorial home and the only publication that I make sure to read every week.

Why? Because, HUMAN EVENTS has helped bust the conspiracy of furious spin the liberals use to keep Americans misinformed, since 1944 -- longer than any other weekly publication -- and is the one paper to have published my columns through thick and thin.

Order today and you can get a free copy of my book, plus my weekly column delivered to your home with the unvarnished truth contained in HUMAN EVENTS.

My liberal critics won't enjoy my book (the truth hurts), but I'm sure you will.

Thanks,

Ann Coulter

[Buccaneer]

More talk about Ann Coulter, less talk about my political leanings. :)

As far as what Franklin said, I don't know that I'm a strict conservative. Definitely on the fiscal side of things I am, but socially I'm finding myself turning more libertarian as I get older. I blame it on Bucc's signature.

You have a mike...spread the word, please.

Next time I'm in the DC area, I'll cuddle with you.

[sabotai]

HUMAN EVENTS is my editorial home and the only publication that I make sure to read every week.

There's the fuckin surprise of the century.

[kcchief19]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/images/morans.jpg
That's a winner!

[kcchief19]

Am I the only one who is hoping that Coulter comes out and tries to explain that she was misquoted in her own book? I think that's the only thing left to this story.

[Glengoyne]

Good-natured jibe!? Surely, you're joking? He jumped in with an unprovoked personal assault, and then instead of leaving it that kept it going. Maybe he would have gotten a pass if he wasn't a proven assclown and super-troll.

Well he was told that he never got close to busts....A good natured jab, no doubt. So he retaliated. I don't believe that he retaliated in such a way to as to deserve a ban from a forum in which "Pretty much anything goes".

[clintl]

You don't seriously believe that it was just the "homosexual" remark that got Bubba boxed, do you?

Bubba's bad behavior started with this sentence on Page 1.

Cartman, your an idiot.

He almost single-handedly destroyed the whole thread with the first post, then continued to troll right up to the moment SD took care of him. He didn't make a a single non-trolling post.

[stevew]

Am I the only one who is hoping that Coulter comes out and tries to explain that she was misquoted in her own book? I think that's the only thing left to this story.
Pretty much.

[astralhaze]

I can't really rack her for the comment, I've had the same impression of some of the people I've seen in various stories post 9/11 and expressed pretty much the same sentiment, albeit with different words. Once again, Ann says what I'm already thinking & says it better than I could have.

So you're a vile and disgusting human being too? Hardly something I'd be proud of.

[astralhaze]

1. I don't consider myself an Ann Coulter "supporter" at all. I rarely read her stuff, and when I do, I often find it tedious. I'm afraid I've given the wrong impression here. All I'm saying is that I don't have a problem with someone being critical of a person or persons who have made themselves into a public figure. These "widows" are fair game. They are clearly profiting from their situation, and they show no interest in keeping a low profile. Although, to be honest, I'd sooner tune them out than waste any ink criticizing them (and thus, "feeding the trolls" - as they crave the attention, in any form). In fact, I kinda wish I'd tuned this whole thread out at this point.


Of course criticizing them is fair game. Mindless and mean spirited personal attacks that sink below the level of any sense of decency is not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So you're a vile and disgusting human being too? Hardly something I'd be proud of.

Lemme see, you don't post for something like 8 months & THIS is the contribution you find pressing enough to come back to make?

You'll just have to understand if I'm not feeling a whole lot of concern about your opinion of me, so you're welcome to take another eight months off.

[astralhaze]

Lemme see, you don't post for something like 8 months & THIS is the contribution you find pressing enough to come back to make?

You'll just have to understand if I'm not feeling a whole lot of concern about your opinion of me, so you're welcome to take another eight months off.

No, I came back to read the OOTP impressions thread and browsed some other threads while I was here. Like most normal people, I read a post and responded with what I thought. I see you're still every bit the angry conservative you've always been.

[Flasch186]

i was out of town and just got caught up and I must say that I have never seen BW come flying out of the gates so fast. Usually, if I remember correctly, he would start off with some points or statements supporting his opinion and then when he found that only 2 out of 100 were in the same boat as him he would slowly begin his descent usually having to ignore or blow past many of the rebuttals but in this case it was so fast, so angry, so full of rancor, and many times so full of rectal references or at least references to fecal matter that Im just litterally, blown away.

Now about Ann Coulter?

Here is something for ya....Out of the 5000-6000 families broken up by the WTC Ill bet not all of them were happy marriages but even so, the event itself probably reduced even that number when the only surviving half of the unhappy marriage only remembered the good times. So Ann would be insinuating that the 4 left out of this statistical analysis that took joy in the aftermath happen to be these 4? tough stuff, but Im going to have to say its a reach that it would be these 4 to be happier without their mates.

On a more serious note, it seems like the left pundits are upset when the right uses 9/11 for political gain (which they do even after saying they wont) and the exact same thing occurs from the other side. So Im guessing that using 9/11 is fair game, and probably always has been after the requisite waiting period was over, and the dialogue that it wouldnt be was rhetoric. no?

[astralhaze]

On a more serious note, it seems like the left pundits are upset when the right uses 9/11 for political gain (which they do even after saying they wont) and the exact same thing occurs from the other side. So Im guessing that using 9/11 is fair game, and probably always has been after the requisite waiting period was over, and the dialogue that it wouldnt be was rhetoric. no?

9/11 is fair game. This type of "discourse" is not.

[WVUFAN]

Now about Ann Coulter?

Here is something for ya....Out of the 5000-6000 families broken up by the WTC Ill bet not all of them were happy marriages but even so, the event itself probably reduced even that number when the only surviving half of the unhappy marriage only remembered the good times. So Ann would be insinuating that the 4 left out of this statistical analysis that took joy in the aftermath happen to be these 4? tough stuff, but Im going to have to say its a reach that it would be these 4 to be happier without their mates.

On a more serious note, it seems like the left pundits are upset when the right uses 9/11 for political gain (which they do even after saying they wont) and the exact same thing occurs from the other side. So Im guessing that using 9/11 is fair game, and probably always has been after the requisite waiting period was over, and the dialogue that it wouldnt be was rhetoric. no?

My problem is with Ann's statement that the widows are misusing the money given them. As far as I'm concerned, the widows have the right to throw as many parties or extravaganza as they like -- they, and their loved ones have earned that right. There IS no such thing as "misuse" of money they deserve and their family has earned.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... and responded with what I thought.

Do the world a favor next time, just say No. All you're doing in this thread is being a fucking troll.

Hopefully the mods will get off their ass & do something about it.

[astralhaze]

Do the world a favor next time, just say No. All you're doing in this thread is being a fucking troll.

Hopefully the mods will get off their ass & do something about it.

Oh really? I guess you missed the two replies about whether or not Coulter's statements were fair game. I think her comments, as so many of them are, are vile, sick and disgusting. The fact that you agreed with them caused me to take issue. That's not being a troll. Being a troll is starting shit just to start shit. I took issue with your views, that's a different bird altogether.

But, by all means, complain to the mods. It will give me a nice chuckle.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Being a troll is starting shit just to start shit.


Which is exactly what I believe you're doing. I just happened to be a handy vehicle.

You were looking for somebody who might take the bait, whether it was me, Franklin, or whomever. Instead, I spotted the game pretty quickly when I realized that I really didn't know WTF you were but you had a post count.
And that most of your posts in your past two brief visits were in political threads.

But, by all means, complain to the mods.

You're way behind bub, way behind.
But thanks for the retroactive permission I guess.

[astralhaze]

Which is exactly what I believe you're doing. I just happened to be a handy vehicle.

You were looking for somebody who might take the bait, whether it was me, Franklin, or whomever. Instead, I spotted the game pretty quickly when I realized that I really didn't know WTF you were but you had a post count.
And that most of your posts in your past two brief visits were in political threads.


Yes, I like to talk politics. So do you. When I come here the political threads catch my eye. As for my motivations, what is my angle in my two posts saying what I thought the issue with what Coulter said is? Is that highly sophisticated trolling or something?

Anyway, I'm not too worried about it. Good luck getting me banned or whatever.

[Galaxy]

A question for you guys, where did this money come from these widows got? Was it from insurance, or was it taxpayer "compensation" (and for what exactly)?

[clintl]

I'm guessing that she's talking about taxpayer-funded compensation. The families of all of those killed in the 911 attacks were offered compensation from the federal government for the death of their loved ones, but I think they had to give up some litigation rights to get it (I didn't look that up, so I could be wrong on that point).

[Galaxy]

I'm guessing that she's talking about taxpayer-funded compensation. The families of all of those killed in the 911 attacks were offered compensation from the federal government for the death of their loved ones, but I think they had to give up some litigation rights to get it (I didn't look that up, so I could be wrong on that point).


But what could they exactly sue for?

[Crapshoot]

But what could they exactly sue for?

The airlines, for one, and a lot more.

[Edward64]

From my perspective, I think Coulter's defensive/aggressive/snappish/rude appearance with Matt Lauer (sp?) was in bad taste. I've not read her book but her appearance at that interview did not come across well to me.

She may have a point about (some) 9/11 widows but often "its not what you say but how you say it". I agree that she should apologize.

[Galaxy]

The airlines, for one, and a lot more.

Did the airlines do the security before 9/11? I can't remember. I can see them sueing the airports, or were the security firms hired by airlines?

As for the widows, do you think taxpayers reserve the right to critize any sort of spending that is with public money?

[clintl]

As for the widows, do you think taxpayers reserve the right to critize any sort of spending that is with public money?

In this case, I think it's fair to criticize giving them the money if you think that the compensation was inappropriate. There were some people who did exactly that. I personally don't, and fully supported the compensation.

However, once the money was given, the money no longer belongs to the taxpayers. How it's used is a private matter. Other than giving up the litigation rights, I don't remember that there were any conditions placed on the families with regard to what they did with the money.

[st.cronin]

In this case, I think it's fair to criticize giving them the money if you think that the compensation was inappropriate. There were some people who did exactly that. I personally don't, and fully supported the compensation.

However, once the money was given, the money no longer belongs to the taxpayers. How it's used is a private matter. Other than giving up the litigation rights, I don't remember that there were any conditions placed on the families with regard to what they did with the money.

There is a difference between criticism being "legitimate", and criticism being in bad taste. Just because it's in bad taste to criticize these women in this way doesn't mean it's not ok to criticize them at all.

[clintl]

There is a difference between criticism being "legitimate", and criticism being in bad taste. Just because it's in bad taste to criticize these women in this way doesn't mean it's not ok to criticize them at all.

It depends on what you mean by "ok." In a legal sense, sure, it's OK, and if you're criticizing their political activism, sure, that's OK, too. But if you're criticizing them for how they spend the money, you're entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that it's not your money, and it's none of your business.

[Grammaticus]

It depends on what you mean by "ok." In a legal sense, sure, it's OK, and if you're criticizing their political activism, sure, that's OK, too. But if you're criticizing them for how they spend the money, you're entitled to your opinion, but the reality is that it's not your money, and it's none of your business.
For the sake of discussion, how is it not my money? If they received funds from the government, that comes from my taxes. Besides, I can criticize anyone for how they spend their money. Either just out of opinion or based on the fact they will become a burden on the tax payers if they cannot support themselves in the future.

[Glengoyne]

For the sake of discussion, how is it not my money? If they received funds from the government, that comes from my taxes. Besides, I can criticize anyone for how they spend their money. Either just out of opinion or based on the fact they will become a burden on the tax payers if they cannot support themselves in the future.

Well it is not your money, because the Government apportioned each family an allotment, and awarded them the money. It is no longer the goverment's nor any tax payer's money. You, or anyone, are certainly free to criticize these women for politicizing their loved one's deaths. I do think it could have been done in better taste, and really if they want to spend the money they were awarded to forward a political agenda, they are free to do so. The money belongs to them.

[Grammaticus]

Well it is not your money, because the Government apportioned each family an allotment, and awarded them the money. It is no longer the goverment's nor any tax payer's money. You, or anyone, are certainly free to criticize these women for politicizing their loved one's deaths. I do think it could have been done in better taste, and really if they want to spend the money they were awarded to forward a political agenda, they are free to do so. The money belongs to them.
I think the way we look at it differently is, I see the government taking the money away from me and other tax payers against our will and giving to whoever they want. It is a power I do not think they should have. At least not to the level it has reached. Either way, it is an entitlement and when you get something that you did not earn, let the criticism be escpecially candid.

If people like Coulter and Moore want to be as abrasive as they are then so be it. They define themselves in a certain way by doing that and limit some options. But they make a good living out of it and that is their choice. But I will say at least people are choosing to give their money to Coulter and Moore when they buy their products.

[clintl]

Besides, I can criticize anyone for how they spend their money.

Sure you can, but it's still rude and none of your business, and if your target isn't someone like the 9/11 widows, no one is going to print your complaint.

As for the rest of your post, Glengoyne did a fine job of saying what I would have said.

[cartman]

I think the way we look at it differently is, I see the government taking the money away from me and other tax payers against our will and giving to whoever they want. It is a power I do not think they should have. At least not to the level it has reached. Either way, it is an entitlement and when you get something that you did not earn, let the criticism be escpecially candid.

My question on this would be why the criticism to those who received the money? Wouldn't the better target of criticism be those who made the decision to give them them money, if that was what you saw as the problem?

[clintl]

I think the way we look at it differently is, I see the government taking the money away from me and other tax payers against our will and giving to whoever they want. It is a power I do not think they should have. At least not to the level it has reached. Either way, it is an entitlement and when you get something that you did not earn, let the criticism be escpecially candid.



Nearly 3,000 people died in part because the government's security and intelligence agencies failed to put together the clues they had that could have stopped 9/11 from happening. I have no problem with the government using a tiny bit of the money I'm taxed to compensate their survivors under the circumstances.

[Galaxy]

Besides, I can criticize anyone for how they spend their money. Either just out of opinion or based on the fact they will become a burden on the tax payers if they cannot support themselves in the future.

Eh, I think critizing "anyone" for how they spend their money is a bit far stretch. I think if they are spending public money, then yes (outside of lawsuits, SSI (which is money they put towards through the years), we reserve the right.

As for the comment it's rude and none of your business, I agree. If someone is spending beyond their means, they will go down in flames when it catches up to them.

[rexallllsc]

From my perspective, I think Coulter's defensive/aggressive/snappish/rude appearance with Matt Lauer (sp?) was in bad taste. I've not read her book but her appearance at that interview did not come across well to me.

She may have a point about (some) 9/11 widows but often "its not what you say but how you say it". I agree that she should apologize.

She's a complete joke. Her attitude towards Matt Lauer was laughable.

[Honolulu_Blue]

“Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was the world's most unhinged lunatic. He's dead now, so that moves Ann Coulter up to first place.”
<CITE>— David Letterman
</CITE><CITE>
The end.
</CITE>

[Grammaticus]

I agree with those of you above in that some forms of criticism can be very rude and in effect detract from the point the critic is trying to make. Personally I would not take the approch of criticising the 911 widows, even when I don't believe in their political point of view. But, I don't really care if other people do.

Clintl, if you are good with giving the victims money then you should do it privately. I do not want to have to contribute to paying for everything the government of the US fails to do.

Cartman, I do think you should criticize the people who enabled giving the money, if you do not agree with the gift or the general principle of forcefully taking from some and giving to others. I also see why people criticize the recepient. Basically if you can show how poorly they use the gift, it creates support to not give future gifts. It is basically a way to gather information that supports criticizing and stopping the congresspersons who enable, poor use of our money.

[clintl]

Clintl, if you are good with giving the victims money then you should do it privately. I do not want to have to contribute to paying for everything the government of the US fails to do.



I think government should spend money according what the majority wants funded. At the time, this was very non-controversial, and had overwhelming bipartisan support, both with the public and in Congress. Rush Limbaugh is the only one I can remember raising a public objection.

[Buccaneer]

I think government should spend money according what the majority wants funded.

No, no, no, a million times no. There is not enough money in world for them to spend money according what the majority wants funded. :mad: :mad:

Do it yourself and if enough believe it to be a good cause, it would be much, much more effective (non-wasteful) that way. It is attitudes like yours that believe the govt should be funding what the majority wants (which is everything) that makes the federal govt so corrupt, so bloated and so inefficient. [insert more mad thingies here]

[st.cronin]

I think government should spend money according what the majority wants funded. At the time, this was very non-controversial, and had overwhelming bipartisan support, both with the public and in Congress. Rush Limbaugh is the only one I can remember raising a public objection.

I actually remember a lot of eyebrows being raised, but I was living in NY at the time, so it may have been just a local phenomenon. One of the problems, as I recall, was that, for example, the wife of some banker who lived in a mansion in Great Neck could recieve 10-20 times as much compensation as the wife of a firefighter.

[clintl]

No, no, no, a million times no. There is not enough money in world for them to spend money according what the majority wants funded. :mad: :mad:



I should have added, within the overall funding limits that the public is willing to provide. Is that better?

I'm not a libertarian, and strongly disagree with libertarian economic theories, so the rest of your post is not persuasive to me. Simply put, there are things that need to be done to maintain a civilization that the private sector will not do on its own, and that only government has the ability and will to do.

[clintl]

I actually remember a lot of eyebrows being raised, but I was living in NY at the time, so it may have been just a local phenomenon. One of the problems, as I recall, was that, for example, the wife of some banker who lived in a mansion in Great Neck could recieve 10-20 times as much compensation as the wife of a firefighter.

I don't remember hearing about that, so perhaps that was only a local and not a national story.

It was a while ago now, so I'm not ruling out the possibility that I don't remember correctly. But I really don't remember any significant opposition that had national coverage.

[Buccaneer]

and that only government has the ability and will to do but has proven it cannot do so effectively and in some case, proven to cause more problems.

Clarified.

[st.cronin]

I don't remember hearing about that, so perhaps that was only a local and not a national story.

It was a while ago now, so I'm not ruling out the possibility that I don't remember correctly. But I really don't remember any significant opposition that had national coverage.

It may not have even been a local story. It may have just been people I knew bitching.

[stevew]

I actually remember a lot of eyebrows being raised, but I was living in NY at the time, so it may have been just a local phenomenon. One of the problems, as I recall, was that, for example, the wife of some banker who lived in a mansion in Great Neck could recieve 10-20 times as much compensation as the wife of a firefighter.

Yeah, it was a national story, I saw the guy that did the awards. Basically they took what your spouse could reasonably be expected to earn over the rest of their lifetime, and then added 250K to it(for pain and suffering). So if your wealthy husband died, you would get a windfuall.

[KWhit]

Yeah, it was a national story, I saw the guy that did the awards. Basically they took what your spouse could reasonably be expected to earn over the rest of their lifetime, and then added 250K to it(for pain and suffering). So if your wealthy husband died, you would get a windfuall.

Actually, that doesn't seem like a bad way to handle it.

Shurg.

[Glengoyne]

I think the way we look at it differently is, I see the government taking the money away from me and other tax payers against our will and giving to whoever they want. It is a power I do not think they should have. At least not to the level it has reached. Either way, it is an entitlement and when you get something that you did not earn, let the criticism be escpecially candid.

If people like Coulter and Moore want to be as abrasive as they are then so be it. They define themselves in a certain way by doing that and limit some options. But they make a good living out of it and that is their choice. But I will say at least people are choosing to give their money to Coulter and Moore when they buy their products.


I see where you're coming from. I'm just going to point out that this money wasn't simply awarded to these victim's families. It wasn't an entitlement. These victims essentially sold their right to have claims settled in the courts. In the end, that served the interests of all of us tax payers. Everyone who pays taxes pays for services they don't benefit from. It just seems like your argument stems from some obligation these victim's families have to you or us collectively, and I just don't think for a second such an obligation exists.

[Grammaticus]

I see where you're coming from. I'm just going to point out that this money wasn't simply awarded to these victim's families. It wasn't an entitlement. These victims essentially sold their right to have claims settled in the courts. In the end, that served the interests of all of us tax payers. Everyone who pays taxes pays for services they don't benefit from. It just seems like your argument stems from some obligation these victim's families have to you or us collectively, and I just don't think for a second such an obligation exists.
Well, one of the webster definitions for Entitlement is as follows: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program. I would say the payments were an entitlement. If it is going to be given, I agree with including a lawsuit waiver thought.

Problem with the logic of "give the money because it is cheaper than getting sued" is a disfunction of our current societal behavior. What would the government have to do to provide adequate security, understanding that nothing can provide 100% proof against a terrorist attack on our soil? For the 911 scenario, basically secure our borders and eliminate all Muslim extremists. Okay who thinks that would be supported by the majority in the US? Since it is not the general consensus of the US a court should not rule in favor of a claiment as it would be an unrealistic expectation on the US Government. Instead of paying out a bunch of money because you are afraid of lawsuits, how about looking at ways to fix our legal system in regards to that type of flaw?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

I really don't have a problem with the payout, since Bush already blew kajillions on New Orleans and Iraq -- drop in the bucket as they say.

Oh wait, cleaning up a hurricane must be an entitlement too. Oh, same with tax breaks to oil companies. So half a dozen of one and half a dozen of another.

[Grammaticus]

I really don't have a problem with the payout, since Bush already blew kajillions on New Orleans and Iraq -- drop in the bucket as they say.

Oh wait, cleaning up a hurricane must be an entitlement too. Oh, same with tax breaks to oil companies. So half a dozen of one and half a dozen of another.

Yes, when the government pays people stiphends, etc. for aid due to the hurricane it is an entitlement.

Giving a taxpayer a tax break is not an entitlement because you are not giving them anything, you are just taking less. For example many donors were able to recieve a tax break because they gave to a Katrina related charity, that would not be an entitlement. Now, giving someone a tax credit and they actually recieve more money than they paid, would be an entitlement.

Cleaning up debris and other mess would not be an entitlement, but could still be criticized as a misuse of federal funds.

Choosing to give to all of the causes mentioned is a good thing. But forcing others to do it under penalty of jail, is bad in general. If you want to look at it as six of one and half a dozen of another, that is too bad. Someday you will be looking at someone taking something from you of which you do not agree and a bunch of other people will be looking at you saying, ah its just six of one half a dozen of another, ha ha.

[Glengoyne]

Well, one of the webster definitions for Entitlement is as follows: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program. I would say the payments were an entitlement. If it is going to be given, I agree with including a lawsuit waiver thought.

Problem with the logic of "give the money because it is cheaper than getting sued" is a disfunction of our current societal behavior. What would the government have to do to provide adequate security, understanding that nothing can provide 100% proof against a terrorist attack on our soil? For the 911 scenario, basically secure our borders and eliminate all Muslim extremists. Okay who thinks that would be supported by the majority in the US? Since it is not the general consensus of the US a court should not rule in favor of a claiment as it would be an unrealistic expectation on the US Government. Instead of paying out a bunch of money because you are afraid of lawsuits, how about looking at ways to fix our legal system in regards to that type of flaw?

Again the difference is that these people weren't awarded the money as a benefit. They essentially sold the governemnt their right to bring claims in court.

If an airline was aggregiously deficient in their role of providing security, and they were, then the victims could easilly have taken them to court and won. That is simply how the system works. The Airlines would have been hit hard, but I don't think they would have been the only ones. All of the businesses in the Twin Towers would have taken hits as well. Granted they might have insurance for such things, oh the insurance companies were already taking a hit.

I think that the settlements for the victims' families was a good thing. I believe it was good for both the country and the families themselves. They certainly could have gotten satisfaction in the courts, but I think this method was probably easier on them in the long run.

[panerd]

I don't know if this is worthy of a new thread or not, but to me it seems to be another case of ridiculous 9-11 government spending that people make you feel guilty for opposing. More than two years later, nothing is simple about the WTC memorial, called "Reflecting Absence," which was sent back for a redesign after contractors concluded that it could cost nearly $1 billion. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060612/ap_on_re_us/attacks_memorial) WTF?

And yes it states in the article that $350 million of the original $500 million was government money so it's not exactly being footed by private donors. So I can't imagine how much more we may have to contribute if people like this have their say...

"It's simply inexcusable to say today ... that after all this spending, `Gee, I'm sorry, we don't have enough money to secure the story,'" said Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

Sorry about your loss, but I don't see how spending hundred of millions of tax dollars is going to bring your husband back. Here is the only reasonable quote from the whole article...

"There's no reason that this memorial should be $1 billion. Absolutely none," said Daniel Libeskind, the architect who created the master plan for the 16-acre site known as ground zero."

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Yes, when the government pays people stiphends, etc. for aid due to the hurricane it is an entitlement.

Giving a taxpayer a tax break is not an entitlement because you are not giving them anything, you are just taking less. For example many donors were able to recieve a tax break because they gave to a Katrina related charity, that would not be an entitlement. Now, giving someone a tax credit and they actually recieve more money than they paid, would be an entitlement.

Cleaning up debris and other mess would not be an entitlement, but could still be criticized as a misuse of federal funds.

Choosing to give to all of the causes mentioned is a good thing. But forcing others to do it under penalty of jail, is bad in general. If you want to look at it as six of one and half a dozen of another, that is too bad. Someday you will be looking at someone taking something from you of which you do not agree and a bunch of other people will be looking at you saying, ah its just six of one half a dozen of another, ha ha.

Sorry, we just look at it differently. Less money into the government is the same as more money going out. The end result is the same. Frankly, giving unjustified tax breaks and pork spending is the same as payouts to victim families of 9/11. It means less money to spend on education and healthcare period.

As for your last point, unjustified tax breaks and ridiculous spending by the Congress/Administration works the same result as the government coming into my house and taking my TV or money out of my wallet.

[cartman]

I might actually watch the Tonight Show tonight for the first time in a long time. The two guests are Ann Coulter and George Carlin.

:D