OT - Ann Coulter Column

[NoMyths]

Because The Drudge Report is up in arms about Ann Coulter's column for USA Today being spiked (reportedly calling it "unusable" and "not funny"), I thought that since it was the first day of the Democratic Convention I'd do my part for equal time and publish it here, so that at least the FOFC crew would be able to hear what one of the more vocal conservative mouthpieces has to say about the event.

Link: http://www.anncoulter.com

Full Text:
Put the Speakers in a Cage
by Ann Coulter

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats.

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in W.W.F. caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone".

I thought this was a great idea until I realized the nut category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy -- all featured speakers at the convention. I'd say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. W've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting Allah Akbar! Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying digital "Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush -- in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the kool-aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.

Only one major newspaper -- the Boston Herald -- reported Gore's Brown Shirt comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and both are using Nazi imagery. (It's a cycle of violence!)

The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. Support the troops, the signs say, bring them home.

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5% who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much -- I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much -- I think they should go home.

Walking back from the convention site I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks -- who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the American.

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

[SirFozzie]

Wow. Good call USA today.

[Subby]

Kneecap with hair...

[yabanci]

I can't believe people like to read this crap.

And not because I disagree with her political views, but because it's just crap.

[Glengoyne]

Over the top, but she does makea few poignant points. Not that I agree with everything she says in there, but it did generate a few grins.

[Maple Leafs]

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.Nice.

[Franklinnoble]

I'd hit it.

[Ksyrup]

I'm a conservative and this is the first thing I've ever read from this woman. And likely the last.

I know it sorely disappoints people like NoMyths to hear this, but the truth is, many of us don't just take our cues from entertainers such as Rush, Coulter, and O'Reilly. They are what they are - a little bit truth (from my perspective, anyway) and a whole lot of outrageousness, because that's where they make their money.

[Ksyrup]

I'd hit it.
Kneecap with hair...
Tonya Harding!

[Glengoyne]

...I know it sorely disappoints people like NoMyths to hear this, but the truth is, many of us don't just take our cues from entertainers such as Rush, Coulter, and O'Reilly...
The difference between republicans/moderates and the whacko left is that, if this article were written from a left wing point of view, you'd have folks claiming there were actual facts all of the women at the democratic convention are ugly, and that Dennis Kucinich actually lost all of the money in his till at a seven eleven.

[NoMyths]

I know it sorely disappoints people like NoMyths to hear this, but the truth is, many of us don't just take our cues from entertainers such as Rush, Coulter, and O'Reilly. They are what they are - a little bit truth (from my perspective, anyway) and a whole lot of outrageousness, because that's where they make their money.Actually, you're incorrect. Your statement doesn't sorely dissapoint me.

[Bee]

The difference between republicans/moderates and the whacko left is that, if this article were written from a left wing point of view, you'd have folks claiming there were actual facts all of the women at the democratic convention are ugly, and that Dennis Kucinich actually lost all of the money in his till at a seven eleven.

Were you abused as a child?

[Ksyrup]

Why else would you post this, then? I don't see any conservatives rushing (no pun intended) to post the latest inane, inflammatory rhetoric from Al Franken, as if his comments speak for all liberals (which is precisely why you continue to post stuff like this).

Well, Franken's probably a bad example, since no one can even GET his show. But I think you get my point.

[Cringer]

I'm a conservative and this is the first thing I've ever read from this woman. And likely the last.

I know it sorely disappoints people like NoMyths to hear this, but the truth is, many of us don't just take our cues from entertainers such as Rush, Coulter, and O'Reilly. They are what they are - a little bit truth (from my perspective, anyway) and a whole lot of outrageousness, because that's where they make their money.

Then you my friend, are a conservative who deserves my respect. Nice to hear a comment like this.

More towards the Coulter article, this is her normal crap as it is for many "mouth pieces" of each political party, dems and repubs. My favorite is when they try to depict the other of doing nothing but creating fear in order to win votes, when they both do it. Democrats want you to think all Republicans are super-religious nuts, that are racist and classist. While Republicans want you to think that Democrats are all trying to reform the Soviet Union in the U.S. and that all Dems hate people like troops and soldiers.............it's all so very old and tiresome. Third party voter for life here...............

[NoMyths]

Why else would you post this, then? I don't see any conservatives rushing (no pun intended) to post the latest inane, inflammatory rhetoric from Al Franken, as if his comments speak for all liberals (which is precisely why you continue to post stuff like this).

Well, Franken's probably a bad example, since no one can even GET his show. But I think you get my point.I posted this because at one point it was one of Drudge's top news stories, and once the column became available I wanted to read it to find out why it got spiked. I figured some other folks around here might feel the same way. Drudge is now linking the story from his site as well.

I made no comment that would indicate I believed the statement you made. I'm merely providing today's controversial column by a big-name conservative.

It's unfortunate that you have a skewed idea of my motives. I don't "continue to post stuff like this" -- I'd once again suggest reading through my past OT posts, but that's obviously not going to happen. My political posts are almost entirely restricted to posting news reports, and hardly ever opinion columns. Reading this got me thinking about how I've been accused of never posting anything from "the other side," though, so I thought this would be a good time to do so.

[Arles]

Why is it that people are surprised that as the population becomes increasingly more partisan and inflamatory that the pundents follow suit?

I look at pundits and commentators as entertainers that sometimes make a point. People like Rush, Coulter, Moore, Franken,... are often over the top. But, if they weren't, nobody would listen.

I'm not aware of the market for cautious, moderate and safe political commentators. Maybe when one arises, we'll get more.

[Ksyrup]

It's unfortunate that you have a skewed idea of my motives...Reading this got me thinking about how I've been accused of never posting anything from "the other side," though, so I thought this would be a good time to do so.
Maybe if you hadn't chosen this as your "fair access policy" coming-out post, I wouldn't be so suspicious. Honestly, I don't know what "side" you think most conservatives are on, but this kind of stuff doesn't represent the majority of "our side."

[Easy Mac]

I concur with Arlie... *wait for it*... no its not a joke. Most conservies (easier than writing conservatives) think the left all agree with everything moore says. We don't, he can make good points sometimes, and most people can make good points more often than not. But these people who are on TV either don't know how or just don't want to stop there. They want or have to be extravagant to get their point across. If I have to say that Bush eats babies so I can get on TV, then so be it, as long as I get to express my more exact views on specifics that I disagree. You have to rope them in somehow.

However, if the opinion media people really believe all the stuff they say, then so help us GOd from all sides.

[NoMyths]

Maybe if you hadn't chosen this as your "fair access policy" coming-out post, I wouldn't be so suspicious. Honestly, I don't know what "side" you think most conservatives are on, but this kind of stuff doesn't represent the majority of "our side."Then don't assume that I'm trying to make a statement like that. I realize that this column doesn't represent the majority of conservatives. If I wanted to make a statement to the contrary, I would have.

[Sharpieman]

I totally agree with you Arles.

On a side note, I would hit it and then pull an R. Kelly. lol.

[Dutch]

Ann Coulter (who ever that is) does not represent my beliefs either.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Once again, I find Ann Coulter to be the best female writer in America today, at least in terms of making me say "damn, I wish I had written that". Although this isn't what I'd call her best work (seemed more like Ann doing a characiture of her own writing), there's no columnist I've found that I believe is spot on more often.

[Sharpieman]

Yikes that scares me

[Franklinnoble]

Coulter has definately had better stuff - but perhaps she WANTED to get kicked off the USA Today gig. I'd have never read this column otherwise.

[Ryan S]

Why are USA Today sending Coulter to the Democratic convention and Michael Moore to the Republican convention?

[Glengoyne]

Why are USA Today sending Coulter to the Democratic convention and Michael Moore to the Republican convention?
Apparently someone there has a sense of humor.

[Arles]

I find Coulter, Moore, Franken and Limbaugh all entertaining. I probably gravitate more to what Coulter says as I tend to agree with her premise more often. But, all routinely go over the top. I think it's done to get an issue into debate. Columnists have an ability to dictate political discourse, even if that means setting it up with a somewhat outrageous comment.

All I can say to those outraged is that it is entertainment. Those on the left have as much a right to get outraged by Coulter and the right does by Moore. But, quite honestly, I'm glad both are there to allow outlets for debate and shift the "major media" focus to areas it may not normally go.

[Cringer]

Why are USA Today sending Coulter to the Democratic convention and Michael Moore to the Republican convention?

Their attempt at being "Fair and Balanced" just like good 'ole Foxnews... :rolleyes:

[GrantDawg]

I've read much worse from her before, and have read much worse in major newspapers (I never read USA Today so I can't say that I have read worse in there). Why is this article so terrible?

[Blackadar]

I didn't get past the first paragraph and I'm glad.

I wouldn't "hit" Coulter - I probably actually HIT her instead. No-talent ass-clown hack.

[Crapshoot]

Once again, I find Ann Coulter to be the best female writer in America today, at least in terms of making me say "damn, I wish I had written that". Although this isn't what I'd call her best work (seemed more like Ann doing a characiture of her own writing), there's no columnist I've found that I believe is spot on more often.


A woman who calls for America to invade all the Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity is "the best writer in America today?" ? She got fired from the national Review (more specifically- Jonah Goldberg) for it - Most people here are probably familiar with it, and its one of the most respected conservative viewpoints out there. Im conservative/libertarian (Rockefeller Republican), and I think Coulter's crap is abosultely disgusting, and Im disgusted (but not completely surprised) that there are conservatives who find her racist, incoherent, ramblings to be valid.

[TroyF]

I concur with Arlie... *wait for it*... no its not a joke. Most conservies (easier than writing conservatives) think the left all agree with everything moore says. We don't, he can make good points sometimes, and most people can make good points more often than not. But these people who are on TV either don't know how or just don't want to stop there. They want or have to be extravagant to get their point across. If I have to say that Bush eats babies so I can get on TV, then so be it, as long as I get to express my more exact views on specifics that I disagree. You have to rope them in somehow.

However, if the opinion media people really believe all the stuff they say, then so help us GOd from all sides.


I'm more conservative than liberal and I don't think every liberal gets their facts from Michael Moore. The people who do scare the living hell out of me.

The thing that surprises me here is that the article was spiked. I don't see any reason it should have been. Does it cater to my beliefs? No. Many parts of the article offended me. But really, what did it say that was "out of bounds?" That liberal females are ugly? Whoop de do. She calls some protesters wacko? so what.

There wasn't anything there that was deserving of the article being clipped. I've never read a Coulter book and I doubt I ever will. But I have read some scathing liberal columns where you'd think every Republican was a goose stepping, gun toting racist sleazeball. I've never heard of one of those editorials being "spiked."

[JPhillips]

She's a cunt, but not the endearing sort.

[Blackadar]

I'm more conservative than liberal and I don't think every liberal gets their facts from Michael Moore. The people who do scare the living hell out of me.

The thing that surprises me here is that the article was spiked. I don't see any reason it should have been. Does it cater to my beliefs? No. Many parts of the article offended me. But really, what did it say that was "out of bounds?" That liberal females are ugly? Whoop de do. She calls some protesters wacko? so what.

There wasn't anything there that was deserving of the article being clipped. I've never read a Coulter book and I doubt I ever will. But I have read some scathing liberal columns where you'd think every Republican was a goose stepping, gun toting racist sleazeball. I've never heard of one of those editorials being "spiked."


Troy, I think it should have been spiked. I won't read the rest of it, but there's no journalism or news involved. It's a flame, pure and simple. Starting off at the "Spawn of Satan" convention and continuing from there, it has no redeeming value whatsoever. I have NEVER seen a liberal column in any newspaper that said flatly that "Republicans are goose-stepping Nazis" in so many words. If you can find a copy, I'd love to see it.

To call Democrats the "spawn of Satan" has no business being in any reasonable newspaper. It's an insult of the highest degree.

Coulter is nutcase and USA Today had every right - in fact, the DUTY - to spike this drivel.

[CamEdwards]

I probably shouldn't admit this but...

I typically don't read Ann Coulter. I've never been able to get into her writing.

[NoMyths]

I probably shouldn't admit this but...

I typically don't read Ann Coulter. I've never been able to get into her writing.'Bout time you showed up again. I'll look forward to seeing you in a thread again next month. ;)

[GrantDawg]

Troy, I think it should have been spiked. I won't read the rest of it, but there's no journalism or news involved. It's a flame, pure and simple. Starting off at the "Spawn of Satan" convention and continuing from there, it has no redeeming value whatsoever. I have NEVER seen a liberal column in any newspaper that said flatly that "Republicans are goose-stepping Nazis" in so many words. If you can find a copy, I'd love to see it.

To call Democrats the "spawn of Satan" has no business being in any reasonable newspaper. It's an insult of the highest degree.

Coulter is nutcase and USA Today had every right - in fact, the DUTY - to spike this drivel.
You don't read the AJC much then.

[JonInMiddleGA]

A woman who calls for America to invade all the Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity is "the best writer in America today?" ?

I'm not much on the involvement of the military in any sort of "conversion" mission, Christian or otherwise. That isn't a military mission.

But for the notion of eliminating hostile governments? Well, invasion is definitely one method to acheive that end.

Point blank -- I don't believe there's a "Muslim country" that I trust not to be knee-deep in supporting various terrorist groups and sooner or later, they will have to be dealt with. Not randomly, not without proper timing & planning, but eventually.

I don't believe "You're either with us or against us" was a remark made lightly, I believe it was meant rather literally, and I support pretty much everything that phrase implies.

[Blackadar]

You don't read the AJC much then.

I'm assuming you mean the Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Show me some place in that newspaper that says something along the lines of "Republicans are baby-killing Nazis" - some statement equivalent to even just the first line of what Coulter wrote. Give me a link. Scan an article. Please. I'd love to see it.

Even if you're able to produce this, and I'm not sure you can, it still doesn't mean it's right.

[WussGawd]

Because The Drudge Report is up in arms about Ann Coulter's column for USA Today being spiked (reportedly calling it "unusable" and "not funny"), I thought that since it was the first day of the Democratic Convention I'd do my part for equal time and publish it here, so that at least the FOFC crew would be able to hear what one of the more vocal conservative mouthpieces has to say about the event.

Link: http://www.anncoulter.com

Full Text:
Put the Speakers in a Cage
by Ann Coulter

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats.

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in W.W.F. caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone".

I thought this was a great idea until I realized the nut category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy -- all featured speakers at the convention. I'd say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. W've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting Allah Akbar! Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying digital "Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush -- in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the kool-aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.

Only one major newspaper -- the Boston Herald -- reported Gore's Brown Shirt comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and both are using Nazi imagery. (It's a cycle of violence!)

The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. Support the troops, the signs say, bring them home.

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5% who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much -- I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much -- I think they should go home.

Walking back from the convention site I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks -- who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the American.

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

So speaks one of the voices of the Republican Party. Kerry-Edwards '04, baby!

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but there's no journalism or news involved.

Just out of curiosity ... how is distinguishable from the vast majority of op-ed writers in any publication, regardless of slant?

Other than the blunt nature of the remarks, how is this really any different?
I certainly see no requirement for fact, rhyme, reason, or logic to the majority of commentaries in many publications, so how is this really so different from them?

The only thing I can figure is that you're drawing some distinction by "degree" of hyperbole, but if that's the case, who sets the standard for an "acceptable" level?

FTR, I've got no problem with USA Today spiking the column, it's their paper, they've got the right to do what they want. When I ask "who sets the standard", I guess I'm really asking where do you personally draw the line, is that done "by degree" or something else?

I guess this is almost a tangent to the thread, but your comment made me curious enough to inquire a little deeper.

[CamEdwards]

'Bout time you showed up again. I'll look forward to seeing you in a thread again next month. ;)

Sorry I haven't been around much. Between ghostwriting Al Gore's speeches, helping to edit Fahrenheit 9/11, and licking the soles of George Soros's boots... I've been a busy kitty. I promise to try and post here more often (that is, if Mistress Hillary lets me). :)

[Crapshoot]

I'm not much on the involvement of the military in any sort of "conversion" mission, Christian or otherwise. That isn't a military mission.

But for the notion of eliminating hostile governments? Well, invasion is definitely one method to acheive that end.

Point blank -- I don't believe there's a "Muslim country" that I trust not to be knee-deep in supporting various terrorist groups and sooner or later, they will have to be dealt with. Not randomly, not without proper timing & planning, but eventually.

I don't believe "You're either with us or against us" was a remark made lightly, I believe it was meant rather literally, and I support pretty much everything that phrase implies.

Jon, nothing personal, but I hope you're never in power to implement the idea that any government that's "different" ought to be invaded. Point blank - as long as the attitude exists that Islam is a belief that needs to be wiped of the planet methodically (or deprived of any power), and that opposition to US policy equates to terrorism, I don't think you have a voice at a reasonable table.

[GrantDawg]

some statement equivalent to even just the first line of what Coulter wrote. Give me a link.
I'm not paying for their "Stacks" access, but an equivalent would not be hard at all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... as long as the attitude exists that Islam is a belief that needs to be wiped of the planet, ... I don't think its reasonable to take your opinion as reasonable.

And as long as people are willing to delude themselves into believing that Islamic government are willing to peacefully coexist with non-Islamic nations, they will remain a threat to the rest of the world ... until they are eliminated. And I don't believe it's even remotely realistic to believe otherwise.

As for this bit:
and that opposition to US policy equates to terrorism

I don't believe I said that. There's a gap between "opposition to policy" and active terrorism. I acknowledge that, although I don't believe you think I did/do.

[Blackadar]

Just out of curiosity ... how is distinguishable from the vast majority of op-ed writers in any publication, regardless of slant?

Other than the blunt nature of the remarks, how is this really any different?
I certainly see no requirement for fact, rhyme, reason, or logic to the majority of commentaries in many publications, so how is this really so different from them?

The only thing I can figure is that you're drawing some distinction by "degree" of hyperbole, but if that's the case, who sets the standard for an "acceptable" level?

FTR, I've got no problem with USA Today spiking the column, it's their paper, they've got the right to do what they want. When I ask "who sets the standard", I guess I'm really asking where do you personally draw the line, is that done "by degree" or something else?

I guess this is almost a tangent to the thread, but your comment made me curious enough to inquire a little deeper.


Jon, because she flat out in the first line, calls Democrats the "spawn of Satan". That's not journalism in any form. Blunt? More like insulting in the extreme and inflamitory. And we're not talking about the end of an discussion and drawing a comparison. We're talking about the opening line.

There are degrees of acceptability. Much like on this board, there's things that are acceptable and things that aren't. Yes, it's always subjective. But that goes WAY over the line of what's permissable or acceptable in responsible journalism. Of course, Coulter doesn't know a thing about journalism either, so I'm glad USA today does.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but an equivalent would not be hard at all.

I'd have to agree.

A certain Cynthia McKinney wanna-be is an easy bet for just about anything you'd need.

[Glengoyne]

...
I don't believe "You're either with us or against us" was a remark made lightly, I believe it was meant rather literally, and I support pretty much everything that phrase implies.
I don't believe that was a remark that was actually ever said. It is semantics I understand but he said "You are with us or you are with the terrorists". There is a difference, though not to some.

[Crapshoot]

I don't believe "You're either with us or against us" was a remark made lightly, I believe it was meant rather literally, and I support pretty much everything that phrase implies.

Jon, what exactly is this line meant to imply if not that ?

[dawgfan]

And as long as people are willing to delude themselves into believing that Islamic government are willing to peacefully coexist with non-Islamic nations, they will remain a threat to the rest of the world ... until they are eliminated. And I don't believe it's even remotely realistic to believe otherwise.

OK, before I blow a fuse over this, how are defining an "Islamic government"?

[Blackadar]

I'd have to agree.

A certain Cynthia McKinney wanna-be is an easy bet for just about anything you'd need.

So what you're saying is can't or won't find an equivalent comment. I figured as much. No offense, but that's typical. I'm saying "prove it" and you probably can't.

Probably just as well, as:

1. We'd end up debating the semantics on why one is as bad as the other.
2. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you could find an article that said "George Bush is a devil worshipper" in the opening line, it still doesn't mean it's the proper thing to do. As much as I hate the guy, that kind of crap doesn't belong in any semi-nonpartisan newspaper.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Jon, because she flat out in the first line, calls Democrats the "spawn of Satan". That's not journalism in any form. Blunt? More like insulting in the extreme and inflamitory. And we're not talking about the end of an discussion and drawing a comparison. We're talking about the opening line.

There are degrees of acceptability. Much like on this board, there's things that are acceptable and things that aren't. Yes, it's always subjective. But that goes WAY over the line of what's permissable or acceptable in responsible journalism. Of course, Coulter doesn't know a thing about journalism either, so I'm glad USA today does.

So it is, then, just a matter of personal interpretation.

Even I thought the remark was exaggerated for effect but honestly not all that far from the mark.

And yet I've seen more examples of remarks that were insulting in the extreme, intentionally inflammatory, and bore no resemblence to reality in more op-ed pieces than I could count. Hell, I'd lose count of ones fitting that description in a week's worth of AJC's alone.

But I take them for what they are -- opinion pieces designed to do nothing moreso than sell newspapers, either by currying favor with those who agree or by enciting those who disagree. Both will accomplish the same goal.

There's a "token conservative" columnist in the AJC that I particularly enjoy reading. I find his observations & insights both entertaining & informative, often even thought-provoking. But at no time do I believe the column is published for any reason other than to encourage me to buy another newspaper. AFAIC, the thoughtful stuff is just a happy by-product as far as the publisher is concerned. (Or maybe even an unhappy by-product as far as they're concerned).

[SFL Cat]

Their attempt at being "Fair and Balanced" just like good 'ole Foxnews... :rolleyes:

Why does everyone pile on Fox News...especially when you have ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN to counterbalance? I think that is precisely why Fox has become the most popular cable news outlet. They recognized an empty niche and filled it.

[Blackadar]

Even I thought the remark was exaggerated for effect but honestly not all that far from the mark.

Then I feel very sorry for you if you think Democrats are even close to the "spawn of Satan".

If that's the case, I have nothing more to say beyond I pity you. I hope God takes pity on you as well.

[GrantDawg]

So what you're saying is can't or won't find an equivalent comment. I figured as much. No offense, but that's typical. I'm saying "prove it" and you probably can't.

Probably just as well, as:

1. We'd end up debating the semantics on why one is as bad as the other.
2. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you could find an article that said "George Bush is a devil worshipper" in the opening line, it still doesn't mean it's the proper thing to do. As much as I hate the guy, that kind of crap doesn't belong in any semi-nonpartisan newspaper.
But it happens all the time. Op-ed is not the journalistic side of the paper, but for heavily partisan, opinionated writers to sound off. I'm saying this article looks no worse than many I've seen. (BTW, I'm far from a fan of Coulter).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't believe that was a remark that was actually ever said. It is semantics I understand but he said "You are with us or you are with the terrorists". There is a difference, though not to some.

Oh, I know I was just paraphrasing.

I've had the exact quote as my sig file on a couple of forums on & off for at least a year now. For the purposes of this thread, I really didn't feel it was neccessary to go pull the precise quote verbatim (for example, I always have trouble recalling whether the word "either" was included as the 3rd word in the quote or not), I figured everybody would know the quote I was referring to.

(And yeah, I know you knew what I meant -- I was just taking a shortcut & you caught me ;) )

[Glengoyne]

...2. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you could find an article that said "George Bush is a devil worshipper" in the opening line, it still doesn't mean it's the proper thing to do. As much as I hate the guy, that kind of crap doesn't belong in any semi-nonpartisan newspaper.
About the closest I can think of is Michael Moore standing next to a democratic party candidate for president and proclaiming the "President of the United States is a deserter". Not written in a paper, and initially all of the candidates distanced themselves from him for such rhetoric. Now however as proof that if you repeat something, no matter how outlandish, enough times it will become front page news, it has actually become a story in the mainstream media.

I am not defending what Coulter said in her article. It just seemed to me that you were intimating that the left doesn't make irresponsible statements, and this came to mind.

[GrantDawg]

About the closest I can think of is Michael Moore standing next to a democratic party candidate for president and proclaiming the "President of the United States is a deserter". Not written in a paper, and initially all of the candidates distanced themselves from him for such rhetoric. Now however as proof that if you repeat something, no matter how outlandish, enough times it will become front page news, it has actually become a story in the mainstream media.

I am not defending what Coulter said in her article. It just seemed to me that you were intimating that the left doesn't make irresponsible statements, and this came to mind.
Not really what he is saying. He talking about editoral pieces in newspapers, not just a "the left never/the right always" thing.

[Blackadar]

Why does everyone pile on Fox News...especially when you have ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN to counterbalance? I think that is precisely why Fox has become the most popular cable news outlet. They recognized an empty niche and filled it.

None of those have "liberal" leanings - they walk the middle of the road.

- This means Republicans think they lean left and are the "liberal media".
- This means Democrats think they promote "big business" and stifle real discussion.
- This means those of in the middle know both groups are full of shit and "big media" is just protecting itself and maximizing their audience (and ratings).

The FOX station has been smart in that more Republicans (than Democrats) watch the news, so it's good business to have a channel dedicated to their causes. But their news is shit. I won't even patronize a business that has the FOX channel on. Not because I'm a liberal, but because I just don't want to hear the partisan bullshit. Just because FOX is "right" doesn't mean the others are "left".

[cuervo72]

Well, that was sure one heck of an interesting article. And the contents of it will stay with me for oh, about 3 minutes (I don't pay any attention to Coulter, O'Reilly, etc. either).

Except the term "pie wagons". That elicited some imagery.

[Blackadar]

About the closest I can think of is Michael Moore standing next to a democratic party candidate for president and proclaiming the "President of the United States is a deserter". Not written in a paper, and initially all of the candidates distanced themselves from him for such rhetoric.

There's a substantial difference between saying the "President of the United States is a deserter" and saying "Democrats are the spawn of Satan". One is attacking an action or policy. It's also only attacking one individual. The other is attacking the people directly and it's personally attacking an entire group of people. Sorry, but it's not even CLOSE to the same thing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Then I feel very sorry for you if you think Democrats are even close to the "spawn of Satan".

If that's the case, I have nothing more to say beyond I pity you. I hope God takes pity on you as well.

I believe that the Democratic Party, with its current leadership, aims, and goals, constitutes the greatest threat to the progress, the maintenance, and ultimately the existence of the United States on the planet today. Off-hand, I'd say only an extremely angry China comes close at this point, and they don't seem particuarly motivated to tackle us at that level right now, while I see the Democratic Party making every effort to systematically destroy most of the values this country has.

Phrased another way, that guy over there may have an RPG in his trunk, but I'm a little more concerned about the one who is pointing his pistol at me right now.

If that doesn't qualify for a bit of hyperbole such as "spawn of Satan", then I'm not sure what would, short of the literal anti-Christ.

[Blackadar]

I believe that the Democratic Party, with its current leadership, aims, and goals, constitutes the greatest threat to the progress, the maintenance, and ultimately the existence of the United States on the planet today. Off-hand, I'd say only an extremely angry China comes close at this point, and they don't seem particuarly motivated to tackle us at that level right now, while I see the Democratic Party making every effort to systematically destroy most of the values this country has.

Phrased another way, that guy over there may have an RPG in his trunk, but I'm a little more concerned about the one who is pointing his pistol at me right now.

If that doesn't qualify for a bit of hyperbole such as "spawn of Satan", then I'm not sure what would, short of the literal anti-Christ.

*shakes head at such intolerance and hatred*

[JonInMiddleGA]

*shakes head at such intolerance and hatred*

*shakes head at such lack of judgement*

[SFL Cat]

*shakes head at such intolerance and hatred*

This is why the Democrats have been getting their collective butts kicked in most national elections. This is why they lost control of the Congress in the mid-nineties after forty-years of unbroken power. Today's Democrats don't answer any of the charges. Charges that many see as legitimate. Instead of presenting a counter point, you throw up such cliches as this.

If you want to talk about intolerance and hatred, then watch the Pual Wellstone Memorial service. What I saw there scared me a lot more than anything I've ever seen or heard from the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh or O'Reilly.

Personally, I don't think Limbaugh takes himself seriously half the time he's on the air and he makes me laugh more times than not when I listen to him. I don't read Coulter, but she's never said anything more outrageous than what I've heard from the likes of Al Franken, Michael Moore, Johnny Depp, Rosie O'Donnel...insert your favorite liberal entertainer here.

If a liberal offers his/her opinion, it's free speech and must not be censored...when something comes out of the mouth of a conservative, its bigotry and hate speech and it must be silenced. Seems like an obvious double-standard, and based on election results from the past decade, I'm not the only one who has noticed it.

[albionmoonlight]

*shakes head at such intolerance and hatred*
*shakes head at such lack of judgement*
*Gets ready to clean up with his new FOFC chiropractor business*

[Dutch]

None of those have "liberal" leanings - they walk the middle of the road.

Trust me on this Blackie, if you think it's "middle of the road", it ain't. :)

[SFL Cat]

*Gets ready to clean up with his new FOFC chiropractor business*

LOL

[Driftwood]

I honestly don`t see the point in getting worked up about this.

Coulter writes what she does because that`s how she makes money. I can almost bet that she tried doing other things in her middle years to earn a buck and get noticed, get some fame, but it wasn`t working so she switched to "Liberals are Satan" stuff.

A chicks gotta earn, too, you know. As long as you realize its all an act, you get over it pretty quick. If you`ve ever seen her try to defend her writing during an interview you`ll understand how flimsy it all is.

Her writing this stuff is no different than a comedian going into shock-humor in order to make a name for himself. I`m pretty sure Andrew Dice Clay doesn`t live the life he portrays, why would Anne Coulter be any different?

To qoute Vonnegut, "Anyone who criticizes a piece of writing is like a knight who puts on a full suit of armor to attack a hot fudge sundae."

[TroyF]

Liberals have been comparing Republicans as racists and nazis for years. They do it on the radio. They do it on the TV and they certainly do it in the newspaper. I've never seen ay of it get "spiked", though I could be wrong. Want examples? Here's an editorial from 1998 that talks about the liberal hate speech and gives many examples:

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/29/jacoby_archive_123198.htm

What Coulter wrote up above wasn't news. It was an opinion peice. Her opinion on most of the topics she discussed is wrong, but it doesn't say anything so offensive it should be pulled either. If the USA Today wants to pull it, so be it. I'd have never read the article if they hadn't pulled it.

When I read that they had spiked the thing, I read it to see exactly how far she went. To be honest, I'm surprised. Not only have I seen liberal op eds just as nasty, I've seen conservative op eds that make Coulter's peice above look like a childrens novel.

There isn't any controversey here, other than the one USA Today created by pulling the article.

As for Jon. . . he's only sounding off about most of our worst fears. At some point a line WILL be crossed and things will get ugly. It may take a dirty bomb blowing a state off the map. It may take another five 9/11's. It may take more than that.

At some point, Israel or the US will snap after an extremist attack. God forbid we find out a foreign governement helped fund that attack. We'll determine the only way to effectively eliminate the threat of more attacks is to start eliminating countries.

I'm not saying I want to do it. I'm not saying I look forward to it happening. I don't say I'm excited about it either. But dont' treat Jon as if he's some hate monger because he sees a sadly realistic scenario headed our way if things aren't changed. I pray he's wrong and that it never happens. I pray that it's really just some psychotic, right wing lunatics doing this and that they don't have state supported help. I have my doubts my prayers will be answered. :(

[JonInMiddleGA]

Trust me on this Blackie, if you think it's "middle of the road", it ain't. :)

For some reason, this reminded me of Leonard Goldberg's comment in Bias

It may be hard to believe, but liberals in the newsroom, pretty much, see
NOW and Tribe and even left-wing Democrats as middle of the road. Not coincidentally, just as they see themselves. When you get right down to it, liberals in the newsroom see liberal views as just plain…reasonable.

[Blackadar]

Trust me on this Blackie, if you think it's "middle of the road", it ain't. :)

This coming from someone who's so far right on the road that you're in the breakdown lane...like you're in any way qualified to evaluate.

LMAO

Remember, Dutch, I'm an independent and hate both parties.

[SFL Cat]

This coming from someone who's so far right on the road that you're in the breakdown lane...like you're in any way qualified to evaluate.

LMAO

Remember, Dutch, I'm an independent and hate both parties.

Take off that Kerry/Edwards pin and say that.
:p

[Blackadar]

As for Jon. . . he's only sounding off about most of our worst fears. At some point a line WILL be crossed and things will get ugly. It may take a dirty bomb blowing a state off the map. It may take another five 9/11's. It may take more than that.

At some point, Israel or the US will snap after an extremist attack. God forbid we find out a foreign governement helped fund that attack. We'll determine the only way to effectively eliminate the threat of more attacks is to start eliminating countries.

I'm not saying I want to do it. I'm not saying I look forward to it happening. I don't say I'm excited about it either. But dont' treat Jon as if he's some hate monger because he sees a sadly realistic scenario headed our way if things aren't changed. I pray he's wrong and that it never happens. I pray that it's really just some psychotic, right wing lunatics doing this and that they don't have state supported help. I have my doubts my prayers will be answered. :(

After 9/11, I was for threatening to nuke Mecca if such an attack was ever repeated. Drastic measures like that may be what's necessary to eliminate such attacks. If we can prove that a country gave substantial aid in the event of one of these attacks (a la Afghanistan), then let's nail 'em. I love the fact we took out the Taliban. I think we really need to look at the Saudis and others as well. But I don't think we will because of politics.

Frankly, I consider the 9/11 attacks weapons of mass destruction (what would you call 3,000 people dead?) and that we have every right to respond in kind. I'm not an apologist for our nuking Japan in WWII. They deserved it and it was the quickest way to end the war with the minimum loss of life on both sides. I truly believe that.

That's not a liberal view. It's a pragmatic one.

But if we start restricting our own freedoms because we're worried about terrorism, then the terrorists win. That's where Bush and Company have really lost their way. Trying to spy on and jail US citizens without trial or court review is not permissible. That is the sole reason I'm voting for Democrats this election.

[clintl]

I believe that the Democratic Party, with its current leadership, aims, and goals, constitutes the greatest threat to the progress, the maintenance, and ultimately the existence of the United States on the planet today.

What aims and goals might those be that have you so worried?

And, as far as your Muslim nation remark, what about Turkey? You think we're going to have to do away with it as well?

[Blackadar]

Take off that Kerry/Edwards pin and say that.
:p

If I had one, I'd stab you in the eyeball for that comment. But I don't...so you're safe for now. :)

[JPhillips]

Jon: Just a few reminders,

Someone in the Bush White House outed a CIA agent

The Justice Department of the Bush Admin wrote a memo arguing the President could in effect ignore laws because he's at war

The White House Chief Counsel's office wrote a memo arguing that Bush could violate the Geneva Convention if he wanted

The GAO said that "Medicare" ads paid for with taxpayer money were really Republican advertising and probably illegal

The Bush Admin has used taxpayer money to ad statements praising Bush policies on official treasury documents

The Dept. of HHS kept the chief Medicare actuary from presenting acurate figures to Congress on at least four seperate occasions. Again, the GAO has ruled that this was probably illegal

The Defense Sec. has admitted to keeping a prisoner hidden from the Red Cross, a war crime as defined by the Geneva Convention

Republican senate staffers were caught breaking into files on Democratic servers, a clear violation of the law

House Majority Leader Delay used Homeland security assets to track political opponents

In at least two seperate states Republicans have broken a one hundred year precedent and redistricted outside of census concerns

A Republican committee chair called Capitol police to arrest democrats who disagreed with the chair

A Republican congressman has accused his leadership of trying to bribe him for a vote

On numerous occasions Republicans have violated voting rules and extending the time allowed for voting until they have acquired all the votes they need

Now why are Democrats such a big threat again?

[Crapshoot]

Liberals have been comparing Republicans as racists and nazis for years. They do it on the radio. They do it on the TV and they certainly do it in the newspaper. I've never seen ay of it get "spiked", though I could be wrong. Want examples? Here's an editorial from 1998 that talks about the liberal hate speech and gives many examples:

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/29/jacoby_archive_123198.htm

What Coulter wrote up above wasn't news. It was an opinion peice. Her opinion on most of the topics she discussed is wrong, but it doesn't say anything so offensive it should be pulled either. If the USA Today wants to pull it, so be it. I'd have never read the article if they hadn't pulled it.

When I read that they had spiked the thing, I read it to see exactly how far she went. To be honest, I'm surprised. Not only have I seen liberal op eds just as nasty, I've seen conservative op eds that make Coulter's peice above look like a childrens novel.

There isn't any controversey here, other than the one USA Today created by pulling the article.

As for Jon. . . he's only sounding off about most of our worst fears. At some point a line WILL be crossed and things will get ugly. It may take a dirty bomb blowing a state off the map. It may take another five 9/11's. It may take more than that.

At some point, Israel or the US will snap after an extremist attack. God forbid we find out a foreign governement helped fund that attack. We'll determine the only way to effectively eliminate the threat of more attacks is to start eliminating countries.

I'm not saying I want to do it. I'm not saying I look forward to it happening. I don't say I'm excited about it either. But dont' treat Jon as if he's some hate monger because he sees a sadly realistic scenario headed our way if things aren't changed. I pray he's wrong and that it never happens. I pray that it's really just some psychotic, right wing lunatics doing this and that they don't have state supported help. I have my doubts my prayers will be answered. :(


Troy, I supported the war in Iraq because of the WMD I (and everyone else) was lead to believe existed in Iraq- I even thought the war justified as a moral act, given what Iraq was under. hell, If I had a vote, I would have voted Republican in every election in my lifetime except Clinton (why the democratic party runs away from its most marketable leader surprises me). Im no liberal. That being said, Jon's statement equating every Muslim state to a terror state (in some form) and that opposition of the US is a justifiable prextext for war (again, read the statement I highlighted earlier) is earily Strauss-like; and remarkly ridiculous. At some point, someone has to call him on statements like this- he does conservatives and the American cause more disservice when he says things like this. Maybe its because Im not American, and that I've actually lived my life in places with a significant Islamic presence, but this kind of shit bothers me a lot. Bigotry is bigotry, from the left (the Sharpton, McKinney's and a hell of a lot more) or the right. Hell, I hold the right to higher standards, because its closest to my perception of the "Best" way and I do not want it to fall prey to the idiocies I associate with much of left.

[SFL Cat]

After 9/11, I was for threatening to nuke Mecca if such an attack was ever repeated. Drastic measures like that may be what's necessary to eliminate such attacks. Or possibly start a world-wide united Islamic jihad in earnest. Do you think even the Mulims in the U.S. would sit still for something like this? Man, talk about scary. :rolleyes:

Trying to spy on and jail US citizens without trial or court review is not permissible. That is the sole reason I'm voting for Democrats this election. Even if Kerry wins, things will continue as they are, at least on the domestic front. Of this I have no doubt. Quite frankly, how many more 9/11s or dirty bombs are you willing to risk to be P.C.? In my book, any citizen who throws his lot in with the enemy (in this case the terrorists) is a traitor, deserving of a traitor's reward. Simply jailing them without trial is too good for them.

[Dutch]

This coming from someone who's so far right on the road that you're in the breakdown lane...like you're in any way qualified to evaluate.

LMAO

Remember, Dutch, I'm an independent and hate both parties.

I've never been dishonest with where I stand. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Bigotry is bigotry

I'd say you're confusing bigotry with discernment. It seems to be a common mistake.

[SFL Cat]

If I had one, I'd stab you in the eyeball for that comment. But I don't...so you're safe for now. :)

Come on Blackie...give peace a chance!
;)

[Blackadar]

Or possibly start a world-wide united Islamic jihad in earnest. Do you think even the Mulims in the U.S. would sit still for something like this? Man, talk about scary. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I'd probably nuke Mecca after a public warning. If violence is the only thing some Islamic groups want to understand, then that's what they'll get. But then again, I know I'm in the minority on this. Fine. Don't want to nuke Mecca? Then we start precision bombing their holy sites. Better?


Even if Kerry wins, things will continue as they are, at least on the domestic front. Of this I have no doubt. Quite frankly, how many more 9/11s or dirty bombs are you willing to risk to be P.C.? In my book, any citizen who throws his lot in with the enemy (in this case the terrorists) is a traitor, deserving of a traitor's reward. Simply jailing them without trial is too good for them.

This bothers me to no end. This is typical right-wing BS. You can't defend your position, so you need to label it PC. This isn't PC and if you label it as such, then you have no understanding of the issue at all. This is the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. And it DOES NOT PERMIT the President or anyone else to deprive a US citizen a fair trial. PERIOD.

When you talk about jailing people without trial, then you're jailing them without proving they're a traitor. Without that proof, without that check and balance, they can jail anyone they want at any time. That's not a reach and it's not scare tactics. It's a pure and simple reasonable conclusion. And that's not supposed to be the country we live in.

I'd risk EVERY dirty bomb or 9/11 to prevent this from happening. Because one it happens, then you don't live in the USA. You live in a police state.

If they come for me, you'll see me exercise my right (more proof that I'm not a liberal) to keep and bear arms when my house becomes another Ruby Ridge.

I'm a patriot, not a parrot.

[Blackadar]

I've never been dishonest with where I stand. :)

No, but from where you stand, you don't have a very good angle of the action. You can see only half the field. :)

[Blackadar]

I'd say you're confusing bigotry with discernment. It seems to be a common mistake.

No, Jon, in your case it's not a mistake. You're a bigot.

[Arles]

Troy, I think it should have been spiked. I won't read the rest of it, but there's no journalism or news involved. It's a flame, pure and simple.
I wouldn't read any Maureen O'Dowd in the Times anytime soon then.

[clintl]

I'd say you're confusing bigotry with discernment. It seems to be a common mistake.

You're a real piece of work, Jon, cloaking your intolerance and personal attacks against those who disagree with you in what appear to be reasoned words. But many of us discern the hate-filled, genocidal policies you advocate, and are not fooled by the facade.

[Arles]

The FOX station has been smart in that more Republicans (than Democrats) watch the news, so it's good business to have a channel dedicated to their causes. But their news is shit. I won't even patronize a business that has the FOX channel on.
If you don't patronize a business that has it on, I take it then that you don't watch Fox News. If that's the case, how on Earth would you know "their news is shit"?

[clintl]

If you don't patronize a business that has it on, I take it then that you don't watch Fox News. If that's the case, how on Earth would you know "their news is shit"?

I can tell you when I became convinced that "their news is shit" rather than simply biased - when I spent a day in early 2003 with parents, and my mother was watching "coverage" of the Scott Peterson case. The quality of reporting and analysis was so sensationalistic, and quite frankly, horribly written that it was pretty much National Enquirer-level journalism. I had never seen such lack of professionalism on a high-budget, national newscast before. And I didn't really have position on the Peterson case at the time, so my reaction wasn't because I was ideologically opposed to the Fox viewpoint on the issue.

[SFL Cat]

I can tell you when I became convinced that "their news is shit" rather than simply biased - when I spent a day in early 2003 with parents, and my mother was watching "coverage" of the Scott Peterson case. The quality of reporting and analysis was so sensationalistic, and quite frankly, horribly written that it was pretty much National Enquirer-level journalism. I had never seen such lack of professionalism on a high-budget, national newscast before. And I didn't really have position on the Peterson case at the time, so my reaction wasn't because I was ideologically opposed to the Fox viewpoint on the issue.

hell, you could say that about any of the news networks covering that case, especially the 24-hour must have content at all costs cable news outlets.

[clintl]

hell, you could say that about any of the news networks covering that case, especially the 24-hour must have content at all costs cable news outlets.

Well, yes, especially back then, but Fox went far beyond the rest in the bit that I saw. It was basically one "expert" after another arguing for hanging the guy now (this was back even before the bodies were found), interspersed with the kind of anchor commentary you might expert from your local, super-low budget independent TV station news. At least, that's how I remember it.

[Arles]

I can tell you when I became convinced that "their news is shit" rather than simply biased - when I spent a day
Glad to see you gave it a fair shake.

To think, I only needed 5 years of watching CNN in the 90s to see that there were better odds of Bin Laden walking up to the White House lawn than CNN ever hiring a competant conservative comentator. It's pretty easy to make the conservative angle look silly when you trot that group of blowhards they had back then. That is, if you actually watched during the 20 minutes a day when they would allow a conservative to speak.

[clintl]

Personally, I am not all that concerned about Fox having a conservative slant, and the conservatives want to watch it, that's fine with me. But now that you guys have your conservative news outlet, I wish you would shut up about the "liberal" news media. Like here in Sacramento - for years, all the conservatives complained about the #1 newspaper in the market, the Bee, when there was a conservative alternative, the Union. Eventually, the Union died because nobody was buying it. The conservatives seemed to prefer buying the Bee and complaining. I actually had a conservative co-worker tell me that he hoped the Union would go under, because that would force the Bee to become more conservative (it didn't, and the conservatives are still complaining).

[Jesse_Ewiak]

To the point of Democratic Party only having ugly woman... Liz Phair. Scarlet Johansen. Natalie Portman. Minnie Driver. Liz Phair. Eliza Dukshu. We win. :-)

[Arles]

To the point of Democratic Party only having ugly woman... Liz Phair. Scarlet Johansen. Natalie Portman. Minnie Driver. Liz Phair. Eliza Dukshu. We win. :-)
I take it you like Liz Phair? ;)

[Blackadar]

If you don't patronize a business that has it on, I take it then that you don't watch Fox News. If that's the case, how on Earth would you know "their news is shit"?

Obviously, because I've seen it before. Duh. :rolleyes:

[Blackadar]

If you don't patronize a business that has it on, I take it then that you don't watch Fox News. If that's the case, how on Earth would you know "their news is shit"?

Obviously, because I've seen it before. Duh. :rolleyes:

[Blackadar]

If you don't patronize a business that has it on, I take it then that you don't watch Fox News. If that's the case, how on Earth would you know "their news is shit"?

Obviously, because I've seen it before. Duh. :rolleyes:

[Blackadar]

If you don't patronize a business that has it on, I take it then that you don't watch Fox News. If that's the case, how on Earth would you know "their news is shit"?

Obviously, because I've seen it before. Duh. :rolleyes:

[Honolulu_Blue]

Because The Drudge Report is up in arms about Ann Coulter's column for USA Today being spiked (reportedly calling it "unusable" and "not funny"), I thought that since it was the first day of the Democratic Convention I'd do my part for equal time and publish it here, so that at least the FOFC crew would be able to hear what one of the more vocal conservative mouthpieces has to say about the event.

Link: http://www.anncoulter.com

Full Text:
Put the Speakers in a Cage
by Ann Coulter

Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston, conservatives are deploying a series of covert signals to identify one another, much like gay men do. My allies are the ones wearing crosses or American flags. The people sporting shirts emblazened with the "F-word" are my opponents. Also, as always, the pretty girls and cops are on my side, most of them barely able to conceal their eye-rolling.

Democrats are constantly suing and slandering police as violent, fascist racists -- with the exception of Boston's police, who'll be lauded as national heroes right up until the Democrats pack up and leave town on Friday, whereupon they'll revert to their natural state of being fascist, racist pigs.

A speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year, Al Sharpton, accused white police officers of raping and defacing Tawana Brawley in 1987, lunatic charges that eventually led to a defamation lawsuit against Sharpton and even more eventually, to Sharpton paying a jury award to the defamed plaintiff Steve Pagones. So it's a real mystery why cops wouldn't like Democrats.

As for the pretty girls, I can only guess that it's because liberal boys never try to make a move on you without the UN Security Council's approval. Plus, it's no fun riding around in those dinky little hybrid cars. My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

Apparently, the nuts at the Democratic National Convention are going to be put in cages outside the convention hall. Sadly, they won't be fighting to the death as is done in W.W.F. caged matches. They're calling this the "protestor's area," although I suppose a better name would be the "truth-free zone".

I thought this was a great idea until I realized the nut category did not include Sharpton, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and Teddy Kennedy -- all featured speakers at the convention. I'd say the actual policy is only untelegenic nuts get the cages, but little Dennis Kucinich is speaking at the Convention, too. So it must be cages for nuts who have not run for president as serious candidates for the Democratic Party.

Looking at the line-up of speakers at the Convention, I have developed the 7-11 challenge: I will quit making fun of, for example, Dennis Kucinich, if he can prove he can run a 7-11 properly for 8 hours. We'll even let him have an hour or so of preparation before we open up. Within 8 hours, the money will be gone, the store will be empty, and he'll be explaining how three 11-year olds came in and asked for the money and he gave it to them.

For 20 years, the Democrats wouldn't let Jimmy Carter within 100 miles of a Convention podium. The fact that Carter is now their most respectable speaker tells you where that party is today. Maybe they just want to remind Americans who got us into this Middle East mess in the first place. W've got millions of fanatical Muslims trying to slaughter Americans while shouting Allah Akbar! Yeah, let's turn the nation over to these guys.

With any luck, Gore will uncork his speech comparing Republicans to Nazis. Just a few weeks ago, Gore gave a speech accusing the Bush administration of deploying digital "Brown Shirts" to intimidate journalists and pressure the media into writing good things about Bush -- in case you were wondering where all those glowing articles about Bush were coming from.

The last former government official to slake his thirst so deeply with the kool-aid and become a far-left peacenik was Ramsey Clarke and it took him a few years to really blossom. Clinton must have done some number on Gore. Then again, with his yen for earth tones in a man's wardrobe, maybe Gore's references to "Brown Shirts" was intended as a compliment.

Only one major newspaper -- the Boston Herald -- reported Gore's Brown Shirt comment, though a Bush campaign spokesman's statement quoting the "Brown Shirt" line made it into the very last sentence of a Los Angeles Times article. The New York Times responded with an article criticizing both Republicans and Democrats for using Nazi imagery. Democrats call Republicans Nazis, the Republicans quote the Democrats calling Republicans Nazis and both are using Nazi imagery. (It's a cycle of violence!)

The nuts in the cages are virtual Bertrand Russells compared to the official speakers at the Democratic Convention. On the basis of their placards, I gather the caged-nut position is that they love the troops so much, they don't want them to get hurt defending America from terrorist attack. Support the troops, the signs say, bring them home.

That's my new position on all government workers, except the 5% who aren't useless, which is to say cops, prosecutors, firemen and U.S. servicemen. I love bureaucrats at the National Endowment of the Arts funding crucifixes submerged in urine so much -- I think they should go home. I love public school teachers punishing any mention of God and banning Christmas songs so much -- I think they should go home.

Walking back from the convention site I chatted with a normal Bostonian for several blocks -- who must have identified me through our covert system of signals. He was mostly bemused by the Democrats' primetime speakers and told me he used to be an independent, but for the last 20 years found himself voting mostly Republican. Then he corrected himself and said he votes for the American.

I'd say I love all these Democrats in Boston so much I want them to go home, but I don't. I want Americans to get a good long look at the French Party and keep the 7-11 challenge in mind.

Man, reading crap like this really makes me embarassed by the fact that this psychopathic, horse-faced bitch of the apocalypse actually went to the same law school I did... :(

For shame.

[robbgmaier]

I bet she likes it in the butt, as she screams "pound me pound me POUND ME.....oooooooOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH YES YES YES YES YES........harder, harder HARDER HARDER...", as her head smacks into the wall beyond the headboard periodically.

[Chief Rum]

No comment on all that has transpired here but this.

Blackadar, if you don't think you're a raging liberal, support for the Dem party or not, you are seriously deluding yourself. Trust me, those of us on one side know who's on the other side. We're not confusing the middle of the road guys with the true opposites. And you, sir, are very much opposite our side and nowhere near middle of the road.

It's best you learn to accept that about yourself now, because saying otherwise really detracts from your credibility.

CR

[sabotai]

Chief, no offense, but you once tried to label me as a liberal too, so I doubt you're very good at determining a person's political stance based on what you see on a message board.

[Chief Rum]

Chief, no offense, but you once tried to label me as a liberal too, so I doubt you're very good at determining a person's political stance based on what you see on a message board.

Perhaps, sabotai. Where would you place Blackadar? It seems to me every single one of these threads I have wandered into that he has posted in has had him at the very least posting a left-leaning opinion, and often a far-left one. It should be noted that Blackie is somewhat combative, so it tends to stand out that when he gets into arguments in these threads, it is with the conservatives of the thread that he does so.

And I still wouldn't exactly call you a conservative either.

CR

[Honolulu_Blue]

And I still wouldn't exactly call you a conservative either.

CR

Take the compliment and be happy, Sab.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Y'know, if having enough sense to recognize my enemies, and then having enough honesty to call them such makes me "a bigot", well I suppose I can live with the label.
As a matter of fact, I slept pretty well last night. Not enough perhaps, but well.

[Chief Rum]

Going over recent threads, we have Blackadar arguing with noted conservatives, the Rahns, although I will note that I don't see his opinion here, or theirs, as being aprticularly based in a left or right ideology.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=28317


Here is one where Blackadar says he is anti-Bush. While that doesn't mean he's on the left, it lends more credence to the possibility.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=28317


The following is a counter-religious argument Blackadar puts up. Once again, this shows something that goes somewhat against conservative values. To be fair and honest, I should note I generally agree with him here (the whole masturbation is the Devil thing is overblown) and in the previous thread (I, too, am concerned at the Bush administration's policy regarding holding terrorist suspects, like the ones at Gunatanamo).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=26874


Now, admittedly, his first post here in the following thread is offered up somewhat facetiously, but the fact he doesn't often agree with prominent FOFC conservatives (if you will) is clear here. He also even offers up the implication he is normally a liberal.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=26465


Here's one where Blackadar attacks conservatives. Once again, this doesn't mean he leans left, but then I'm not finding a lot of Blackadar attacks on liberals (try, any).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=25975


The always fun "Rumsfled lied" thread. Blackadar didn't stay in this one long, but it's pretty clear where he stands on this one.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=25975


To be fair and balanced: here is the first thread I found in which I felt that Blackadar was clearly and without reservation expressing a conservative take on things (Israel and handling of suicide bombers).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=23485


Here's an instance of Blackadar arguing with Cam Edwards (who was apparently arguing with a lot of people in that thrad, almost all liberals from what I could see in a passing glance).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=22442&page=1&pp=50


Here he is supporting the teacher's union (although it's obvious much of this is due to his wife being a teacher), and once again, arguing with CamEdwards. They must be good buds. ;)

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=22006


Partial birth abortion. I don't think the Christian Coalition will be using Blackadar as their lead spokeman on this issue.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=16203


lol...Blackadar has espoused his opinions of Ms. Coulter before. :)

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=15128

*******************

Looking over Blackadar's posts the past year or so has made me realize that, while very argumentative and opinionated, he also is prolific in his posting, offers up some good humor at times, and offers plently of sensible, reasonable arguments. I would also say he isn't 100% on the left (or anywhere near it).

That said, his stated feelings about the Bush administration, his stance ona number of key divisive issues between conservatives and liberals, and his constant fighting with conservative board members on political issues (while I never see him take a bite out of NoMyths or Flasch186, for instance) gives him exactly the decidedly left lean I felt he had, and I think he himself will admit he has if he thinks about it.

Blackadar, from what I have seen, is clearly a moderate liberal, with some conservative leanings, but not many. He seems more capable of using logic and reason in his arguments, and seems much more attuned to common sense than some of the other more left members (and more right) here, so in that respect I will say he is closer to a centrist.

But I still think, looking through these, that if Blackadar thinks he is right smack in the middle, I would argue that, at least where the middle is placed right now, he is off the target a bit.

I have much respect for Blackadar's opinions and that he supports them intelligently (if ranting at times), but that doesn't mean he doesn'e lean to the left.

CR

[TroyF]

This is where the liberal/PC/new American debates scares me.

Jon isn't a bigot because he sees the hatred the far Muslim right has for us, knows that there are many in that group who happen to be in leading positions in the Arab world, and understands that if the terrorist attacks on our soil reach anywhere near what is happening in Israel, that we are going to have to start taking countries out one by one.

I haven't seen Jon say he lays awake at night dreaming of Muslim children dying. I haven't seen anywhere where Jon has said the Muslim religion, as a whole, should be cleared from the face of the Earth.

He's being downright blunt, but I think we need to be right now. We need to look at the way this is currently heading and look at realistic scenarios. One of those scenarios is that there will be state sponsered terrorism against us and that we may be put in a position of doing some things that aren't very nice.

I still haven't made up my mind about the next election, but the far left scares me as much as the far right, if not more so. PC is horrific on all levels. Kerry has shown me very little.

JPhillips,

Do you not think we could make a similar list about democrats? Do you think they've been fair and impartial and never made mistakes? (I guess lying under oath and hiding paperwork in the White House is Ok, right? Or maybe raising money on the white house phone calling to Asia is an "illegal" thing as well?) Do you think there aren't democratic senators who are disgusted with their party?

Jon isn't saying the Republicans are perfect. He's saying the liberal ideology threatens a lot of what he believes in. Republicans can be slimy scumbags. I could add another twenty pages to your list. The problem is the democrats are just as slimy. I'm not going to attack any of the individual points you make (though I disagree with some of them) Nor am I going to list off a run of democratic errors, so you can go through point by point and show me how wrong I am. It's pointless and useless.

I don't agree with everything Jon says. If we have a 10 point scale on how far right you are, Jon probably enters in as a 9.8. . . I'm closer to 3.5) But for those of you dropping his arguements to bigotry and "the Republicans make mistakes too" are missing the point of his posts. That's just sad.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If we have a 10 point scale on how far right you are, Jon probably enters in as a 9.8. . . I'm closer to 3.5

Hey Troy, how come we're 6.3 apart, and yet you understand me (quite well as a matter of fact), while some who claim to be centrists & theoretically would be closer to my position on the scale are able to entirely miss the point.

Maybe you've just been paying attention? ;)

Along with that, you raise a couple of things that I'd like to comment on as well, hope you don't mind if I borrow a quote or two.

One of those scenarios is that there will be state sponsered terrorism against us and that we may be put in a position of doing some things that aren't very nice.

The same people who have a hard time believing in state-sponsored terrorism seem to be the same ones who were so utterly shocked by the events of 9/11.

Counterterrorism experts had been warning against the dangers we created for ourselves with lax security & an overall disregard for prevention for at least 25 years (and that's just the time frame I can remember) No, the precise scenario & the use of planes as weapons may not have been at the forefront of these warnings, but the inadequate measures that would have made the operation more difficult certainly were.

The same attitudes that allowed 9/11 are the same attitudes that almost ensure another high profile attack. And yet the same people who didn't see it then don't seem to see it now.

Jon isn't saying the Republicans are perfect. He's saying the liberal ideology threatens a lot of what he believes in.

And it's unlikely you'll ever see me claim the former, especially as long as my views and the established party line are 180 degrees apart on the issue of legalized abortion.

The latter is also right on target. And I believe I've figured out why that statement seems to raise so many hackles.

In a world where so many seem to deny the concept of right & wrong, of black & white, I'm not the least bit troubled by saying that I not only believe in those concepts, but I'll also say which is which. I've never really understood the argument that is made about "but what if you're wrong?"

Hell, if I thought I was wrong, then I'd be on the other side of the argument, it seems rather irrational to me to argue a point that you don't believe is correct. But apparently the left has been wrong so often & so consistently that the concern has rendered them virtually incapable of having confidence in their own judgements. Either that, or at some level they know they're wrong but persist in arguing for the sake of argument. I don't really get that, and at this point I've realized that it's largely a waste of effort to understand such an incomprehensible concept -- instead I prefer to expend the energy on eliminating the obstruction.

FWIW, I take no joy in realizing what the Democratic Party has become. In fact, it causes me considerable sorrow, having spent the majority of my life
as a member of the party. But as sad as it's sorry condition makes me, I'm
at least equally sad that I didn't fully realize just how far & fully it had tilted sooner. That's a mistake that I can't just "un-do", and I have to live with that ... but it's one that I can most assuredly prevent from happening again.

[Bee]

If we have a 10 point scale on how far right you are, Jon probably enters in as a 9.8. . . I'm closer to 3.5)

I think you greatly underestimate yourself Troy. :D

[Blackadar]

Going over recent threads, we have Blackadar arguing with noted conservatives, the Rahns, although I will note that I don't see his opinion here, or theirs, as being aprticularly based in a left or right ideology.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=28317


Here is one where Blackadar says he is anti-Bush. While that doesn't mean he's on the left, it lends more credence to the possibility.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=28317


The following is a counter-religious argument Blackadar puts up. Once again, this shows something that goes somewhat against conservative values. To be fair and honest, I should note I generally agree with him here (the whole masturbation is the Devil thing is overblown) and in the previous thread (I, too, am concerned at the Bush administration's policy regarding holding terrorist suspects, like the ones at Gunatanamo).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=26874


Now, admittedly, his first post here in the following thread is offered up somewhat facetiously, but the fact he doesn't often agree with prominent FOFC conservatives (if you will) is clear here. He also even offers up the implication he is normally a liberal.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=26465


Here's one where Blackadar attacks conservatives. Once again, this doesn't mean he leans left, but then I'm not finding a lot of Blackadar attacks on liberals (try, any).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=25975


The always fun "Rumsfled lied" thread. Blackadar didn't stay in this one long, but it's pretty clear where he stands on this one.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=25975


To be fair and balanced: here is the first thread I found in which I felt that Blackadar was clearly and without reservation expressing a conservative take on things (Israel and handling of suicide bombers).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=23485


Here's an instance of Blackadar arguing with Cam Edwards (who was apparently arguing with a lot of people in that thrad, almost all liberals from what I could see in a passing glance).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=22442&page=1&pp=50


Here he is supporting the teacher's union (although it's obvious much of this is due to his wife being a teacher), and once again, arguing with CamEdwards. They must be good buds. ;)

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=22006


Partial birth abortion. I don't think the Christian Coalition will be using Blackadar as their lead spokeman on this issue.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=16203


lol...Blackadar has espoused his opinions of Ms. Coulter before. :)

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=15128

*******************

Looking over Blackadar's posts the past year or so has made me realize that, while very argumentative and opinionated, he also is prolific in his posting, offers up some good humor at times, and offers plently of sensible, reasonable arguments. I would also say he isn't 100% on the left (or anywhere near it).

That said, his stated feelings about the Bush administration, his stance ona number of key divisive issues between conservatives and liberals, and his constant fighting with conservative board members on political issues (while I never see him take a bite out of NoMyths or Flasch186, for instance) gives him exactly the decidedly left lean I felt he had, and I think he himself will admit he has if he thinks about it.

Blackadar, from what I have seen, is clearly a moderate liberal, with some conservative leanings, but not many. He seems more capable of using logic and reason in his arguments, and seems much more attuned to common sense than some of the other more left members (and more right) here, so in that respect I will say he is closer to a centrist.

But I still think, looking through these, that if Blackadar thinks he is right smack in the middle, I would argue that, at least where the middle is placed right now, he is off the target a bit.

I have much respect for Blackadar's opinions and that he supports them intelligently (if ranting at times), but that doesn't mean he doesn'e lean to the left.

CR


Now that's some research. Good job! Just a couple of counter-points.

1. Actually, I quite often ignore what I consider stupid liberal positions here because there's enough conservatives to shout those down. Get me started on social spending, welfare, affirimative action or any number of other issues and I'm much more of a conservative. I just know that the right-wingers will take care of the debate and there's usually not too many debates on those issues.

2. You should notice a particular theme to my positions. Whether it be abortion (the right to choose) being jailed without trial (unconstitutional), gun control (against most controls) or keeping religion out of the governement (prayer in schools, school vouchers have no place being government programs or government sponsored), the overall theme is personal liberties and freedom of choice. The majority does not and should not rule this country. Each individual has their own rights. That's what makes this country great and without those individual rights, we're nothing and deserve to fall.

I've never revealed my religion or background on this board (and I'm not about to start now) but those who know me understand my concerns and focus in this area has to do with my family history.

3. I'm not sure we have any liberals on this board who "counter-balance" the extreme right-wingers we have around here. And there's no doubt I'm opinionated. So I'm usually fighting the battle from the left side around here. Put me in Berkley and I'd be considered a Nazi.

So yes, I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others. Put it all together and I'm a fairly middle-of-the-road person...even if I do tend to veer left from time to time. :)

[Honolulu_Blue]

Going over recent threads, we have Blackadar arguing with noted conservatives, the Rahns, although I will note that I don't see his opinion here, or theirs, as being aprticularly based in a left or right ideology.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=28317


Here is one where Blackadar says he is anti-Bush. While that doesn't mean he's on the left, it lends more credence to the possibility.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=28317


The following is a counter-religious argument Blackadar puts up. Once again, this shows something that goes somewhat against conservative values. To be fair and honest, I should note I generally agree with him here (the whole masturbation is the Devil thing is overblown) and in the previous thread (I, too, am concerned at the Bush administration's policy regarding holding terrorist suspects, like the ones at Gunatanamo).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=26874


Now, admittedly, his first post here in the following thread is offered up somewhat facetiously, but the fact he doesn't often agree with prominent FOFC conservatives (if you will) is clear here. He also even offers up the implication he is normally a liberal.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=26465


Here's one where Blackadar attacks conservatives. Once again, this doesn't mean he leans left, but then I'm not finding a lot of Blackadar attacks on liberals (try, any).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=25975


The always fun "Rumsfled lied" thread. Blackadar didn't stay in this one long, but it's pretty clear where he stands on this one.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=25975


To be fair and balanced: here is the first thread I found in which I felt that Blackadar was clearly and without reservation expressing a conservative take on things (Israel and handling of suicide bombers).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=23485


Here's an instance of Blackadar arguing with Cam Edwards (who was apparently arguing with a lot of people in that thrad, almost all liberals from what I could see in a passing glance).

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=22442&page=1&pp=50


Here he is supporting the teacher's union (although it's obvious much of this is due to his wife being a teacher), and once again, arguing with CamEdwards. They must be good buds. ;)

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=22006


Partial birth abortion. I don't think the Christian Coalition will be using Blackadar as their lead spokeman on this issue.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=16203


lol...Blackadar has espoused his opinions of Ms. Coulter before. :)

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=15128

*******************

Looking over Blackadar's posts the past year or so has made me realize that, while very argumentative and opinionated, he also is prolific in his posting, offers up some good humor at times, and offers plently of sensible, reasonable arguments. I would also say he isn't 100% on the left (or anywhere near it).

That said, his stated feelings about the Bush administration, his stance ona number of key divisive issues between conservatives and liberals, and his constant fighting with conservative board members on political issues (while I never see him take a bite out of NoMyths or Flasch186, for instance) gives him exactly the decidedly left lean I felt he had, and I think he himself will admit he has if he thinks about it.

Blackadar, from what I have seen, is clearly a moderate liberal, with some conservative leanings, but not many. He seems more capable of using logic and reason in his arguments, and seems much more attuned to common sense than some of the other more left members (and more right) here, so in that respect I will say he is closer to a centrist.

But I still think, looking through these, that if Blackadar thinks he is right smack in the middle, I would argue that, at least where the middle is placed right now, he is off the target a bit.

I have much respect for Blackadar's opinions and that he supports them intelligently (if ranting at times), but that doesn't mean he doesn'e lean to the left.

CR

Wow.

This post should have its own title:

"Blackadar and Me" or
"Bowling for Blackadar" or
"Blackadar 9/11"

Though I reckon I would be hard pressed (and would shoot myself in the head before I even tried) to find factual inaccuracies in any of these arguments.

[CamEdwards]

If Jon's a bigot, I guess the 9/11 commissioners are bigots as well. From their report:

In this sense, 9/11 has taught us that terrorism against American interests “over there” should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America “over here.” In this same sense, the American homeland is the planet. But the enemy is not just “terrorism,” some generic evil. This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism —especially the al Qaeda network, its affiliates, and its ideology.

As we mentioned in chapter 2, Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam (a minority tradition), from at least Ibn Taimiyyah, through the founders of Wahhabism, through the Muslim Brotherhood, to Sayyid Qutb. That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both. It is further fed by grievances stressed by Bin Ladin and widely felt throughout the Muslim world—against the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel. Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the “head of the snake,” and it must be converted or destroyed.

It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.

I think Jon's uttering a harsh truth, but a truth nonetheless.

[Bee]

Cam, you do realize that report is talking about Islamic terrorists and Jon was talking about Islamic governments?

[Radii]

I've wasted way too much time reading this not to post.

Politicians all lie, even the good ones that we like. On rare occasions though they lie about things that it's just not ok to lie about. Reporters are all biased, even the ones we like(that's probably why we like them, eh?). CNN and FoxNews both suck. Rush Limbaugh probably doesn't take himself seriously, as one poster stated above. That's fine, I don't have a problem with Rush. The scary thing is that some people do take him seriously, even if he's not taking himself seriously. I sure as hell don't get my political views from Al Franken, but there are many people who get their political views from Rush. That frightens me, but I already know we're a nation of well herded sheep, so it doesn't suprise me.

JonInMiddleGa makes numerous comments that scare the hell out of me,but I've yet to have the desire to call him a bigot.

Viva NPR.

[TroyF]

Cam, you do realize that report is talking about Islamic terrorists and Jon was talking about Islamic governments?

Bee, you do realize that Islamic terrorists and Islamic governments can be the very same thing in certain instances? (and maybe far more often than we might like to believe?)

[clintl]

I don't think any of us who regard Jon as a bigot disagree with his premise that Muslim extremists are a huge threat. It's his persistence in insisting the solution is to basically wipe all Muslim nations out, the innocent as well as the guilty, that we regard as the problem. And if you don't think he has said that, read again:

Point blank -- I don't believe there's a "Muslim country" that I trust not to be knee-deep in supporting various terrorist groups and sooner or later, they will have to be dealt with. Not randomly, not without proper timing & planning, but eventually.


Or this ditty from the beginning of the Iraq War:

Minus any of the p.r. aspect, I've long advocated a black glass policy for a number of terroist nations.

And if the choice comes down to 10k-20k Coalition troops or leveling the entire country ... dang, I don't have a mushroom cloud icon.

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/forums/showthread.php?t=6958&highlight=JonInMiddleGA+genocide

There has been a long pattern of such quotes from Jon over the past year and a half.

[Bee]

Bee, you do realize that Islamic terrorists and Islamic governments can be the very same thing in certain instances? (and maybe far more often than we might like to believe?)

Of course, but you do realize there are cases where they are not the same thing don't you?

[TroyF]

Of course, but you do realize there are cases where they are not the same thing don't you?


Of course.

[Arles]

I have always found it interesting how many feel the need to mute their inheirant leanings in an effort to seem more "fair-minded". I don't know that a person's inheirant political leaning is indicative of how fair-minded they are in arguments. I know plenty of moderates that refuse to hear anything positive about Bush (or Clinton for others). There are also numerous liberal and conservative people (Jon and NoMyths strike me as examples) that are very fair-minded and get into healthy debates on numerous "hot-button" issues.

I think the ad-hominem partisan fringe of both ends scares people and they don't want to be associated with either. So, they become "moderates". In the end, though, I think people need to accept their political leanings, but not get to caught up in the talking points of their party. If they can do that, there is no need for a strict liberal or conservative to feel guilty about their true leanings.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Cam, you do realize that report is talking about Islamic terrorists and Jon was talking about Islamic governments?

Just because that seems like a valid distinction, I think I ought to make a brief comment: I don't believe that the difference in the two is all that great, or at least not as great as you appear to believe.

[Arles]

I don't think any of us who regard Jon as a bigot disagree with his premise that Muslim extremists are a huge threat. It's his persistence in insisting the solution is to basically wipe all Muslim nations out, the innocent as well as the guilty, that we regard as the problem. And if you don't think he has said that, read again:

Point blank -- I don't believe there's a "Muslim country" that I trust not to be knee-deep in supporting various terrorist groups and sooner or later, they will have to be dealt with. Not randomly, not without proper timing & planning, but eventually.

I see absolutely nothing in what Jon said there than can be considered bigoted or racist. History has shown than Muslim extremists often hold their governments hostage. You need only look at Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the Palestinians for examples of countries with somewhat moderate leadership that are completely subserviant to their extremist fringe.

So, unless the outlook of the Middle East changes, there is no reason to think that at some point we won't have to deal with countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan and others. That's not saying all the governments and citizens deserve to be attacked themselves, it's simply admitting a sad reality that until these countries stop appeasing terrorism and allowing the extremists to do what they wish, they are a threat to us.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And while I'm dodging work for a few minutes by posting, somewhere back up the thread, someone asked me something to the effect of "what is a Muslim/Islamic government".

An Islamic Republic is a form of government, known as a theocracy, advocated by some Muslim religous leaders in the Middle East and Africa.

Under the rule of an Islamic Republic the laws of the state are the religous laws of Islam, as dictated by the Koran. The head of state and sole ruler is a high-ranking religous cleric, who rules by divine right with a group of religous leaders and spirtual advisors. ... The following countries are officially called an Islamic Republic in their full name: Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, and Pakistan, though they vary greatly in invidual governments.
http://www.fact-index.com/i/is/islamic_republic.html

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
Islamism is a political ideology based on the conservative religious view of Muslim fundamentalism. It holds that Islam is not only a religion, but a system that also governs the politicial, economic and social imperatives of the state. ... Islamists are also active in Algeria, the Palestinian territories, Sudan and Nigeria. ... There is some debate as to how influential Islamist movements remain. Some scholars assert that Islamism is a fringe movement that is dying, following the clear failures of Islamist regimes like the regime in Sudan, the Wahhabist Saudi regime and the Deobandi Taliban to improve the lot of Muslims. However, others (e.g. Ahmed Rashid) feel that the Islamists still command considerable support and cite the fact that Islamists in Pakistan and Egypt regularly poll 10 to 30 percent in electoral polls which many believe are rigged against them. ... Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, has estimated that Islamists (in his word "extremists") now control over 80 percent of the mosques, Islamic schools, Islamic youth groups, and Islamic community centers in the United States of America.

And somewhere along the way, someone inquired about Turkey specifically:
An alternative direction has been taken by many Islamists in Turkey, where the Islamist movement split into reformist and traditionalist wings in 2001. The reformists formed the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party, which gained an overall majority in the Turkish parliament in 2002, and has sought to balance Islamic values with the reqiurements of as secular and democratic political system. Some in the Justice and Development Party see the Christian Democrat parties of Western Europe as a model, which has led some to question whether it is a genuinely Islamist movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

[Maple Leafs]

And as long as people are willing to delude themselves into believing that Islamic government are willing to peacefully coexist with non-Islamic nations, they will remain a threat to the rest of the world ... Your lack of understanding of Islamic history is stunning. Whatever you think of Islam as a culture, there is a long history of treaties, cooperation and "peaceful co-existence" between Islamic and non-Islamic countries.

Now you could certainly argue that Islamic culture a whole looks on non-believers with far more malice than, say, Western Christian societies. But this idea that Islamic societies will run around attacking other countries at random if we don't attack them first is just not supported by actual history.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Whatever you think of Islam as a culture, there is a long history of treaties, cooperation and "peaceful co-existence" between Islamic and non-Islamic countries.

And that's exactly what I believe it is -- history. But not present reality.

Numerous nations have a history of, for example, slave holding, but that doesn't mean they continue the practice today.

[Bee]

Just because that seems like a valid distinction, I think I ought to make a brief comment: I don't believe that the difference in the two is all that great, or at least not as great as you appear to believe.

Well, the degree of difference between the two will always be debatable but I think it's important that we do make a distinction. Sometimes it's difficult being the good guy and having to play by the rules (even if we're the only ones doing so). :D

BTW to clarify something, I don't see any of your statements being indicative of racism or bigotry. When responding to Cam's post I was pointing out the difference between your statements and the 9-11 report, not anything to do with the bigotry statements.

[CamEdwards]

again quoting from the 9/11 commission

As we mentioned in chapter 2, Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam (a minority tradition), from at least Ibn Taimiyyah, through the founders of Wahhabism, through the Muslim Brotherhood, to Sayyid Qutb. That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both.

[Honolulu_Blue]

again quoting from the 9/11 commission

Again terrorists. Not governments.

[Blackadar]

And what's the difference between extremist Muslims advocating the destruction of the United States and extremist Christians like Jon advocating the destruction of Muslim countries? Seriously, any differences sound like semantics to me.

[Maple Leafs]

Numerous nations have a history of, for example, slave holding, but that doesn't mean they continue the practice today.Numerous nations have undergone vast social and cultural changes over the past century. I'd suggest that his has been the case to a far lesser degree in Islamic countries than in the rest of the world.

But put that aside. If you honestly believe that all Islamic governments want to make war with all non-Islamic governments... why aren't they? Where's the attack again the nearby Russians? When does the invasion of Africa resume? Why haven't we even seen an outright declaration of war against Israel in decades?

For a people who are apparently hell-bent of fighting anyone not like them, these governments (and you did say governments, not radical groups) seem to be doing remarkably little outright warmongering. Perhaps, just perhaps, they balance their obvious disdain for non-believers with a more pragmatic view of the world's reality.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And what's the difference between extremist Muslims advocating the destruction of the United States and extremist Christians like Jon advocating the destruction of Muslim countries? Seriously, any differences sound like semantics to me.

An obvious distinction might be that my religion has zero to do with my interest in their elimination as a threat to the United States and/or the rest of the world. Actually, their religion per se has nothing to do with it either, only their behavior.

As for the destruction we wish upon each other, well, that's is indeed pretty mutual.

(I'm not sure whether you were pointing strictly to the latter, or to some "religious overtones", so I figured it was worth clarifying)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Perhaps, just perhaps, they balance their obvious disdain for non-believers with a more pragmatic view of the world's reality.

Or "perhaps" it's a nod to military reality, that they can't win a straight-on conventional war.

[Blackadar]

An obvious distinction might be that my religion has zero to do with my interest in their elimination as a threat to the United States and/or the rest of the world. Actually, their religion per se has nothing to do with it either, only their behavior.

As for the destruction we wish upon each other, well, that's is indeed pretty mutual.

(I'm not sure whether you were pointing strictly to the latter, or to some "religious overtones", so I figured it was worth clarifying)

Simply put, I don't see much of a difference between your behavior/beliefs and extremist Muslim behavior/beliefs. I was merely pointing out that fact. I find it interesting that you're so much alike what you profess to hate.

[Honolulu_Blue]

And what's the difference between extremist Muslims advocating the destruction of the United States and extremist Christians like Jon advocating the destruction of Muslim countries? Seriously, any differences sound like semantics to me.

Fundamentalists are fundamentalists are fundamentalists. There is no real difference. Just the same crap based on a different mythology but believed so devoutly and literally as to pervert any of the original meaning.

[Bee]

And what's the difference between extremist Muslims advocating the destruction of the United States and extremist Christians like Jon advocating the destruction of Muslim countries? Seriously, any differences sound like semantics to me.

To me, the difference would be that extremist Muslims have acted on their beliefs. As far as I know, Jon hasn't. If Jon were to pick up a gun and go outside and start shooting Muslims on the street or kidnapping them and cutting their heads off, then yes I wouldn't see a difference.

[TroyF]

Simply put, I don't see much of a difference between your behavior/beliefs and extremist Muslim behavior/beliefs. I was merely pointing out that fact. I find it interesting that you're so much alike what you profess to hate.


This point simply baffles me. Not much difference? Jon isn't advocating the attack of people at random or for religious purposes.

His advocating of attacks is determined only by the behavior of the terrorists. If they stop suicide bombing, threatening us with total destruction, and advocating and supporting such attacks, Jon will not advocate blowing them off the map.

His response, is just that. . . A RESPONSE. If you can't see that fundamental difference, there is no point in continuing a debate.

I don't agree with Jon on all of this (I don't have time to get into the schematics where we disagree now, but I'm not supporting jon 100% in his belief system), but I'm stunned at how many people simply can't even see his side of the debate. It's not a difficult, hard to grasp concept. It's not bigoted. It's not hate filled. It's not religious in nature. And it asks an incredibly important question if you choose to attack it:

At what point will the line be crossed to the point it cannot be repaired? At what point will we be forced to make a choice of eliminating entire countries or regions who engage and/or support in this type of attack against us? Even more scary for those who want peace: The Israeli's are asking the same questions as the two above, what do we do if they say enough is enough and start without us?

These are fair questions and realistic scenarios people. We can't even begin to debate them if you can't see the difference between a terrorist willing to blow himself and 3,000 civilians up and our response to those type of attacks against us.

[Easy Mac]

This point simply baffles me. Not much difference? Jon isn't advocating the attack of people at random or for religious purposes.

His advocating of attacks is determined only by the behavior of the terrorists. If they stop suicide bombing, threatening us with total destruction, and advocating and supporting such attacks, Jon will not advocate blowing them off the map.

His response, is just that. . . A RESPONSE. If you can't see that fundamental difference, there is no point in continuing a debate.

I don't agree with Jon on all of this (I don't have time to get into the schematics where we disagree now, but I'm not supporting jon 100% in his belief system), but I'm stunned at how many people simply can't even see his side of the debate. It's not a difficult, hard to grasp concept. It's not bigoted. It's not hate filled. It's not religious in nature. And it asks an incredibly important question if you choose to attack it:

At what point will the line be crossed to the point it cannot be repaired? At what point will we be forced to make a choice of eliminating entire countries or regions who engage and/or support in this type of attack against us? Even more scary for those who want peace: The Israeli's are asking the same questions as the two above, what do we do if they say enough is enough and start without us?

These are fair questions and realistic scenarios people. We can't even begin to debate them if you can't see the difference between a terrorist willing to blow himself and 3,000 civilians up and our response to those type of attacks against us.
Isn't that the same arguments that terrorists attempt to use to justify their attacks? The West is attempting to destroy their way of life, their religion. Therefore they need to attack in response for how they feel the west is trying to end their way of life? That our constant forays into the Mid-East are an attempt to destroy them? I'm not saying their right, the terrorists are obviously psychos, but their message isn't much different from yours. The problem is they can't rationally boil it down into a coherent argument and achieve things through non-violent means.

[clintl]

I detest the Islamic extremist movement as much as Jon does. Where I draw the line is that many people living in that part of the world don't share the extremists' views, and Jon seems to not care one way or the other whether they can get out of the way of his scorched earth policy. I will never accept that genocide is a legitimate defense strategy, and that's where I separate my views from his. I also believe that there are limits to what can be achieved militarily, and we are are already learning this. Kicking the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan was a great thing, but it didn't kill Al Qaeda. Saddam's fall was a great thing, too, but it seems to have become rallying point for recruiting more Islamist terrorists so far, and if that's true, it's our fault for making a critical error in the decision to invade Iraq.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Isn't that the same arguments that terrorists attempt to use to justify their attacks? The West is attempting to destroy their way of life, their religion. Therefore they need to attack in response for how they feel the west is trying to end their way of life? That our constant forays into the Mid-East are an attempt to destroy them? I'm not saying their right, the terrorists are obviously psychos, but their message isn't much different from yours. The problem is they can't rationally boil it down into a coherent argument and achieve things through non-violent means.

You raise a very good point here somewhere I think, and I guess it's one that's so obvious that I probably don't spell it out very often (nor, quite possibly, very well). In short, if I read you right, I agree with you.

The difference is that I've already reached a conclusion -- that the two sides cannot, ultimately, peacefully co-exist. The goals & aims are simply too incompatable for conflict to be avoided. The only way there'll ever be a lasting peace in the MiddleEast is when there's only one side left.

I'm content enough with a live-and-let-live philosophy ... until the other side crosses that line. Once they do, then I don't really see a point in responding by half measures. I believe that line has been crossed, and I believe the only solution is to make sure there's only one side left standing. To borrow from Senator Miller, you don't just kill one rattlesnake, you kill them all, otherwise they'll bite you later.

I do not, did not, and would not have advocated starting this conflict, but
I'm about the strongest proponent of finishing it that you're likely to find.

[Easy Mac]

I think there can be peace, but neither side (which has to be drawn on obvious religion/cultural lines) wants to allow the other to do so. We want them to be overy advanced civilizations who promote all the crap we idolize. Meanwhile, they just want to be left alone. We want to convert their members, they want to convert ours... but both sides to it becuase they think thier right. I think the problem is all religions say that advocation of the religion is the right way. The problem is, people often displace advocacy with fanaticism, and can't take "I think I'm right, you think I'm right, agree to disagree." Both sides have to be right all the way. Neither side wants to budge, because if they do, they think the other side will take advantage (and probably rightly so)

So yeah, we're pretty much there. I think you want a solution sooner because you don't see it working on its own. I think it could work, but the solution is much more difficult to reach. In the end, I think both cost the same once you add up everything in the end, it just depends on which is easier for a person to take.

[Maple Leafs]

These are fair questions and realistic scenarios people. We can't even begin to debate them if you can't see the difference between a terrorist willing to blow himself and 3,000 civilians up and our response to those type of attacks against us.You also can't begin the debate without acknowledging that those on the "other side" think that they're responding too. They have a long list of grievances that they believe their actions are in response too.

Look, I'm probably more hawk-ish on middle eastern relations than most of you. I've argued several times before that this whole "bring our troops home" movement is about the most selfish and dangerous idea I've seen. I firmly believe that if you're going to fight a war, you fight and war and don't worry about offending the ivory tower academics back home. I think the US should frankly stop apologizing for things and start throwing its weight around a little more than they already are.

But I don't believe in cookie-cutting things into nice little pieces to make the arguments work. And pretending that the bad guys are all crazy, have no motivations other than religious fervor, and are engaged in a simple good vs. evil battle is just... well, it's lazy. And it will lead to bad arguments and ultimately bad decisions.

[Subby]

I just thought I would make a meaningless post here and say that if we were to have an FOFC Debate Team Draft, MapleLeafs and Bee would be the first two draft picks for Team Subby.

[Buddy Grant]

Holy crap :(

[sabotai]

Perhaps, sabotai. Where would you place Blackadar? It seems to me every single one of these threads I have wandered into that he has posted in has had him at the very least posting a left-leaning opinion, and often a far-left one. It should be noted that Blackie is somewhat combative, so it tends to stand out that when he gets into arguments in these threads, it is with the conservatives of the thread that he does so.

And I still wouldn't exactly call you a conservative either.

CR

I don't read all of the political threads, so I haven't seen him state much of his political ideas (we hardly run the gamet of political ideas around here, they're usually the same several issues regurgitated over and over again). So it's hard to get any kind of read on someone's overall political stance here. All I really know about Blackie is that he really hates President Bush. But that doesn't make him a liberal.

And thank you, I don't want you to call me a conservative. I'm not. I'm not a liberal either. And I wouldn't exactly call myself a moderate either. I'm a boderline anarcho-capitalist (which I realize to many people automatically discredits any political opinion I have since they laugh at such a thing.) I'm not fond of Bush, but that doesn't make me a liberal either. It just makes me a good judge of character. :D

[Arles]

I think there can be peace, but neither side (which has to be drawn on obvious religion/cultural lines) wants to allow the other to do so.
Here's the difference. If the Muslim extremist came up tomorrow and said we will never ever attack you again (and it could be verified), do you think we would attack them?

Now, if we went up to these extremists and said that we would never attack them if they left us alone, do you think they would agree to not do so in return?

I don't think it's a stretch to realize that we were pretty content as a country to leave much of the middle east alone prior to 9/11. In fact, if you take out the World Trade Center, USS Cole and embassy bombings, it's doubtful we would have made one aggressive military move towards the entire middle east under Clinton.

The problem is the extremists don't want peace with us, they want us to pay for our beliefs and the fact that we are aligned with Israel. Do you really think this country would give a rat's ass about the Muslim culture in Syria or Iran if we were guaranteed never to be attacked by that culture?

I just don't see it.

[Blackadar]

You also can't begin the debate without acknowledging that those on the "other side" think that they're responding too. They have a long list of grievances that they believe their actions are in response too.


I figured someone would be able to take my "set up" on this issue and run with it. :)

Muslim fundamentalists think we started it. Hell, they may be right.

[Scarecrow]

Holy crap :(

;) ya Big Troll ;)

[Abe Sargent]

Quick question - is Brunei one of those Islamic governments connected with terrorists? I was thinking of visiitng the island of Borneo for vacation next year, and Brunei has the most beautiful vistas on the island. I was just wondering if anybody had read of any connections or anything.

-Anxiety

[JonInMiddleGA]

Quick question - is Brunei one of those Islamic governments connected with terrorists? I was thinking of visiitng the island of Borneo for vacation next year, and Brunei has the most beautiful vistas on the island. I was just wondering if anybody had read of any connections or anything.

-Anxiety

It does not appear to be on the current State Dept. list of travel warnings.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/warnings_current.html

That's not a complete answer, but maybe it's a little the slightest bit reassuring.

And since we're on the subject, here's some background notes
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2700.htm

[Easy Mac]

Here's the difference. If the Muslim extremist came up tomorrow and said we will never ever attack you again (and it could be verified), do you think we would attack them?

Now, if we went up to these extremists and said that we would never attack them if they left us alone, do you think they would agree to not do so in return?

I don't think it's a stretch to realize that we were pretty content as a country to leave much of the middle east alone prior to 9/11. In fact, if you take out the World Trade Center, USS Cole and embassy bombings, it's doubtful we would have made one aggressive military move towards the entire middle east under Clinton.

The problem is the extremists don't want peace with us, they want us to pay for our beliefs and the fact that we are aligned with Israel. Do you really think this country would give a rat's ass about the Muslim culture in Syria or Iran if we were guaranteed never to be attacked by that culture?

I just don't see it.
Thats the point, their not threatend by our guns or bombs, their threatened by the ideas we send over there (not that we're wrong, becuase I think our way of life is the best). They hate us becuase we try to impose our ways on them, and they don't want them... but of course, it we hated Canada (not too extreme) and the Middle-east aligned with them, if they had bases all around us, if they kept trying to "culturalize" America, I'm sure there would be some pretty whacked out Americans.

I'm not defending the terrorists, but you act as though they kill innocent people for the hell of it and not for a purpose that they (wrongly in my opinion) see as necessary and justified.

Leaving people alone is more than promising not to attack them.

[ISiddiqui]

If the Muslim extremist came up tomorrow and said we will never ever attack you again (and it could be verified), do you think we would attack them?

Overtly or covertly? After all, it was our fault that Iran is a fundamentalist regime. We propped up the murdering bastard known as the Shah of Iran for decades. I think we definetly would try to undermine the governments of those countries using the CIA or whatever other means we have at our disposal. We've done so before.

[Abe Sargent]

It does not appear to be on the current State Dept. list of travel warnings.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/warnings_current.html

That's not a complete answer, but maybe it's a little the slightest bit reassuring.

And since we're on the subject, here's some background notes
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2700.htm

Seems like a nice place. Low crime. Severe penalties for crime (death penalty for drug dealing!). One of the best health care systems in Asia. Lots of college educated people from Western Universities or Mainland ones. English is widely understood and taught. Not great tourist attractions, but good accomidations (I'd go for the nature and hikes anyway, not the spas and resorts). They've eradicated Malaria. Religious freedom guaranteed. English common law legal system. UK judges are appointed for higher courts. Pretty wealthy country from Oil and Gas. Brunei is continually developing their banking and is becoming the Islamic world banking center of choice (the Islamic Switzerland!) Defense agreements with both the US and the UK, with a UK base stationed on Brunei soil.

All in all, seems like a modern Islamic sultanate. Everything you'd wish that certain Middle-Eastern Islamic states would become. Turning oil dollars into investment in other economic investments (alumninum processing plants, banking) and establishing a solid infrastructure with health care and such seems a smart way to go.

-Anxiety

[Maple Leafs]

Here's the difference. If the Muslim extremist came up tomorrow and said we will never ever attack you again (and it could be verified), do you think we would attack them?Define "attack". Would the US go to war with them? No. Would the US continue to prop up US-friendly governments, keeping them in power against the will of average citizens? Would they continue to maintain a troop presence on holy lands? Would they continue to look the other way during periods of mass slaughter (Iraq, Algeria, etc), then suddenly become intensely interested when their oil interests were involved?

Acts of violence such as 9/11 or wars are not the only thing that can cause people to feel, rightly or wrongly, as if they're under attack.
Now, if we went up to these extremists and said that we would never attack them if they left us alone, do you think they would agree to not do so in return?
Obviously, it wouldn't be in America's best interests to take a completely hands off policy to the middle east. But if they did, and if they stood by it, you'd probably be surprised at the reaction.

I don't think it's a stretch to realize that we were pretty content as a country to leave much of the middle east alone prior to 9/11.
Not true. Sorry. To claim (as you seem to be, unless I'm misreading it) that the US did not have much influence on middle eastern affairs prior to 9/11 is just not accurate.

[dawgfan]

And while I'm dodging work for a few minutes by posting, somewhere back up the thread, someone asked me something to the effect of "what is a Muslim/Islamic government".

An Islamic Republic is a form of government, known as a theocracy, advocated by some Muslim religous leaders in the Middle East and Africa.

Under the rule of an Islamic Republic the laws of the state are the religous laws of Islam, as dictated by the Koran. The head of state and sole ruler is a high-ranking religous cleric, who rules by divine right with a group of religous leaders and spirtual advisors. ... The following countries are officially called an Islamic Republic in their full name: Afghanistan, Iran, Mauritania, and Pakistan, though they vary greatly in invidual governments.
http://www.fact-index.com/i/is/islamic_republic.html

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
Islamism is a political ideology based on the conservative religious view of Muslim fundamentalism. It holds that Islam is not only a religion, but a system that also governs the politicial, economic and social imperatives of the state. ... Islamists are also active in Algeria, the Palestinian territories, Sudan and Nigeria. ... There is some debate as to how influential Islamist movements remain. Some scholars assert that Islamism is a fringe movement that is dying, following the clear failures of Islamist regimes like the regime in Sudan, the Wahhabist Saudi regime and the Deobandi Taliban to improve the lot of Muslims. However, others (e.g. Ahmed Rashid) feel that the Islamists still command considerable support and cite the fact that Islamists in Pakistan and Egypt regularly poll 10 to 30 percent in electoral polls which many believe are rigged against them. ... Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a member of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, has estimated that Islamists (in his word "extremists") now control over 80 percent of the mosques, Islamic schools, Islamic youth groups, and Islamic community centers in the United States of America.

And somewhere along the way, someone inquired about Turkey specifically:
An alternative direction has been taken by many Islamists in Turkey, where the Islamist movement split into reformist and traditionalist wings in 2001. The reformists formed the moderate Islamist Justice and Development Party, which gained an overall majority in the Turkish parliament in 2002, and has sought to balance Islamic values with the reqiurements of as secular and democratic political system. Some in the Justice and Development Party see the Christian Democrat parties of Western Europe as a model, which has led some to question whether it is a genuinely Islamist movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

OK, I feel a lot better about your position then. If I'm following you correctly you are making a distinction between countries with a particular kind of Islamic theocracy as opposed to any country with a predominantly Islamic population.

I still get the impression you don't really trust Islam in general, which I suspect is at the root of why some are calling you bigoted. I don't know if you've spent any time in a predominantly Muslim country or have talked much with Muslim people, but my experience is that the loud and active Islamic fundamentalist minority is tarnishing Islam in much the same way Christian fundamentalists have done with Christianity in the past (and in some cases still are). Extremist fundamentalism is not limited to Islam, and is a threat no matter which religion is the source.

[JPhillips]

Troy: I was actually responding to this gem of Jon's:

I believe that the Democratic Party, with its current leadership, aims, and goals, constitutes the greatest threat to the progress, the maintenance, and ultimately the existence of the United States on the planet today. Off-hand, I'd say only an extremely angry China comes close at this point, and they don't seem particuarly motivated to tackle us at that level right now, while I see the Democratic Party making every effort to systematically destroy most of the values this country has.

He quite clearly states that the Democartic party is a greater threat than Al Queada, Islamic fundamentalism or any other threat. I probably should have let this go, but his intolerence to half the U.S. population is stunning. Disagreeing with policies is one thing, but to accuse half the country of being out to destroy America is the worst kind of extremism. While I disagree vehemently with many Republican policies, I would never say the entire party is out to destroy the country.

What I was trying to show was that the current incarnation of the Republican leadership is clearly corrupt and willing to use their power to consolidate authority and destroy their opponents. Now I'm not defending Clinton's above the law actions, but what the Repubs in charge are doing now often has no historical precedent. They not only haven't lived up to their promise of cleaning up Washington they have become far more corrupt than the Dems they replaced. If Jon is going to say that Dems will destroy the country I'd like him to explain how the actions of the Repub leadership is beneficial to the populace.

[yabanci]

..... Extremist fundamentalism is not limited to Islam, and is a threat no matter which religion is the source.

Amen.

[SFL Cat]

Troy: I was actually responding to this gem of Jon's:



I probably should have let this go, but his intolerence to half the U.S. population is stunning. Disagreeing with policies is one thing, but to accuse half the country of being out to destroy America is the worst kind of extremism. While I disagree vehemently with many Republican policies, I would never say the entire party is out to destroy the country.

Then you're in the minority, since that seems to be the standard Democratic rhetoric these days.



What I was trying to show was that the current incarnation of the Republican leadership is clearly corrupt and willing to use their power to consolidate authority and destroy their opponents. Now I'm not defending Clinton's above the law actions, but what the Repubs in charge are doing now often has no historical precedent. They not only haven't lived up to their promise of cleaning up Washington they have become far more corrupt than the Dems they replaced. If Jon is going to say that Dems will destroy the country I'd like him to explain how the actions of the Repub leadership is beneficial to the populace.

Since when do Dems NOT like centralizing power and bureaucratic organizational structures? I do wish you'd elaborate on this. Despite what I've heard about how this administration is quashing civil rights, they certainly haven't gone as far as a certain Democratic regime did when it ordered the interment of thousands of members of a certain ethnic minority during another crisis in American history.

[SFL Cat]

None of those (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN) have "liberal" leanings - they walk the middle of the road.

Oh puh-leez. I was seeing "CBS News: Rather Biased" Bumper stickers years before Fox News was even a twinkle in Rupert Murdoch's eye. I still remember Rather's hard-hitting "interview" with Bill and Hillary Clinton after the Jennifer Flowers scandal broke during the 92 campaign. For goshsakes, the guy was practically gushing over them.

And having watched CNN pretty regularly before Fox News launched, I can honestly say it was referred to as the "Clinton News Network" for a very good reason.

[Glengoyne]

... Despite what I've heard about how this administration is quashing civil rights, they certainly haven't gone as far as a certain Democratic regime did when it ordered the interment of thousands of members of a certain ethnic minority during another crisis in American history.
This is the equivalent of playing the "Nazi" card, it just shouldn't be done. This was obviously a horrible decision, that America is, and should be, ashamed of. Neither political party can survive their position on that particular offense.

[SFL Cat]

Why not...the only way you can measure the severity of current measures is against the standard of history, especially since most people seem to think history began when they were born. Comparatively, we're nowhere close to that, which is especially amazing to me considering the nature of the enemy we're fighting.

[Blackadar]

Why not...the only way you can measure the severity of current measures is against the standard of history, especially since most people seem to think history began when they were born. Comparatively, we're nowhere close to that, which is especially amazing to me considering the nature of the enemy we're fighting.

That would be like saying that the Germans today are still Nazis.

[SFL Cat]

In case you haven't looked, facism is the current rage among German youth. Hitler has become something of an underground cult hero in certain circles.

[SFL Cat]

Speaking of history...I found this article interesting...as they say, there is nothing new under the sun.

hxxp://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/06/the_ny_times_on.html

[Glengoyne]

Why not...the only way you can measure the severity of current measures is against the standard of history, especially since most people seem to think history began when they were born. Comparatively, we're nowhere close to that, which is especially amazing to me considering the nature of the enemy we're fighting.
You can't point your finger and say "Look at what THAT Democratic administration did", because there weren't a lot of Americans, let alone Republicans standing up proclaiming that what was happening was wrong. That's why this argument doesn't hold water.

[Easy Mac]

OK then, I'm playing the "crusades" card as an example of how Christians are horribly intolerant and Muslims have a right to bomb us all... I mean what, that was only nearly a millenia ago, but since the Dems haven't changed in your eyes, then neither has Christianity.

[Blackadar]

In case you haven't looked, facism is the current rage among German youth. Hitler has become something of an underground cult hero in certain circles.

It's not the same thing and you know it.

Your argument has no logic in it. Trying to compare a Civil Rights issue from 60 years ago, at a time of DECLARED war (we're not at war now) is an absurd comparison. That's like saying that all Mongols must be like Gengis Khan.

:rolleyes:

[SFL Cat]

You can't point your finger and say "Look at what THAT Democratic administration did", because there weren't a lot of Americans, let alone Republicans standing up proclaiming that what was happening was wrong. That's why this argument doesn't hold water.

I'm simply pointing out that despite those of you who say the Bush administration is GUILTY OF THE WORST ABUSES of POWER EVER, EVER, EVER don't have it quite right.

[SFL Cat]

OK then, I'm playing the "crusades" card as an example of how Christians are horribly intolerant and Muslims have a right to bomb us all... I mean what, that was only nearly a millenia ago, but since the Dems haven't changed in your eyes, then neither has Christianity.

Well, according to most of you secularists, we haven't.

[Easy Mac]

I'm glad you believe Catholics are secularists.

[SFL Cat]

It's not the same thing and you know it.

Your argument has no logic in it. Trying to compare a Civil Rights issue from 60 years ago, at a time of DECLARED war (we're not at war now) is an absurd comparison. That's like saying that all Mongols must be like Gengis Khan.

:rolleyes:

Please note: during the past several years 3,000 civilians were killed and countless billions of dollars of property was destroyed during an unprecedented attack on U.S. soil; we've brought down two governments; American service men and women are dying in combat, please tell me, WTF would you call it?

I guess you could give me all the techical shit about it not being a declared war, but really we haven't had one of those since 1942.

[SFL Cat]

I'm glad you believe Catholics are secularists.

Excuse an ignorant protestant...I'll substitute pagan. ;)

[Blackadar]

Please note: during the past several years 3,000 civilians were killed and countless billions of dollars of property was destroyed during an unprecedented attack on U.S. soil; we've brought down two governments; American service men and women are dying in combat, please tell me, WTF would you call it?

I guess you could give me all the techical shit about it not being a declared war, but really we haven't had one of those since 1942.

Because we haven't declared war. Look up the Legal, Constitutional and International Law ramifications of declaring war before you post on this subject again.

[SFL Cat]

I guess that means John Kerry was involved in illegal activity in Vietnam...so much for the war hero accolades.

[Glengoyne]

I'm simply pointing out that despite those of you who say the Bush administration is GUILTY OF THE WORST ABUSES of POWER EVER, EVER, EVER don't have it quite right.
Point taken. I certainly don't think Bush has done anything that tops the Japanese internment. I do believe you have to at least consider an argument that the Administration's limited dismissal of Habeus Corpus(sp?) wass the most agregious attack on the constitution by the executive branch since the Japanese Internment.

[Blackadar]

I guess that means John Kerry was involved in illegal activity in Vietnam...so much for the war hero accolades.

I'll give this stupidity what it deserves.

:rolleyes:

Just so you may have a clue, the crux of the argument for Bush detaining "enemy combatants" in Guantamo Bay while not violating the Geneva Convention is that we HAVEN'T declared war.

[dawgfan]

I guess that means John Kerry was involved in illegal activity in Vietnam...so much for the war hero accolades.

Very silly bit of logical progression here - was John Kerry in charge of running the Vietnam War or was he a soldier following orders?

[SFL Cat]

^^^ Kind of reminds you of the German officers who ran the concentration camps, huh? They were just following orders to.

[dawgfan]

^^^ Kind of reminds you of the German officers who ran the concentration camps, huh? They were just following orders to.

:rolleyes:

If you really think these 2 things are equivalent, then I'm finished debating with you, as it's not worth the effort.

[SFL Cat]

I'll give this stupidity what it deserves.

:rolleyes:

Just so you may have a clue, the crux of the argument for Bush detaining "enemy combatants" in Guantamo Bay while not violating the Geneva Convention is that we HAVEN'T declared war.

Actually, if you recheck your facts, I believe the crux was that they were not "official" soldiers of a foreign army, and as such were not entitled to the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

[Arles]

Not true. Sorry. To claim (as you seem to be, unless I'm misreading it) that the US did not have much influence on middle eastern affairs prior to 9/11 is just not accurate.
The point I was trying to make (and not very eloquently, it appears) is that the US primarily reacts to events in the hopes of protecting the US and our allies. We do not simply go out and look for a fight because we don't like someone's religion or overall belief system. We leave all kind of non-Christians (buddist in Asia, parts of south America/africa) completely alone that we don't view as threats.

The point here is that, for whatever reason, much of the extremist faction of the middle east wants us wiped off the planet. Now, whether we "deserve" that or not is inconsequential right now as it is simply a reality of the world we live in. So, to act like we can just play nice with these people and they will leave us alone is not true. So, it seems that our only option is to try and get out in front of any potential attacks and try and cripple these organizations before they amass enough resources to do some serious damage against us.

Do anything else (ie, playing simply defense) is just biting our time until another 9/11 occurs.

[JPhillips]

SFL: Look at the list I posted. I'm not arguing civil rights. I pointed out numerous examples of the Admin or congressional leaders commiting illegal and/or corrupt acts. NONE of these actions have been denied. Now you want to say that means I'm arguing that Republicans are the worst people ever. I am certainly not making that argument. My point is that the current leadership of the Republican party has used their power in historically unprecedented ways, ways which are often illegal. Now if you can prove that I'm wrong by all means do so. If the best you can offer up is that Japanese internment was also wrong, I'll safely stand by what I wrote.

[Buccaneer]

It was very interesting sitting in the balcony watching this show the past few days. I just have a few heckling comments:

Jon: Your bluntness has a kernel of truth but in using language like you (and Coulter) have, you completely bury that kernel from anyone seeing it. Fighting words will automatically have defenses put up and ears shut. Try softening the words, maybe more people will listen. They/we may still disagree but at least the opinions will be heard.

Blacky: What can I say, bro? Sometimes I just don't know what planet you live on. If that is your only reason for not voting for Bush (which, like others, I doubt that claim), then you would have not voted for Lincoln, FDR, LBJ and probably any other president. Here's my point:

The Constitution has not changed. No amendments have been deleted or added. Sometimes, as most all politicians have learned, you have to do stuff in the short-term to prevent even greater problems. But hear me on this. Why in the world would you single out habeus corpus now when all previous presidents, legislatures and most jurists have been ridiculing and abusing Constitutional rights for decades??? In certain platforms and ideologies, Bill of Rights #1, #2 and #10 do not exist.

To a few others: I cannot believe that intelligent people like yourselves can still be hypnotized by Clinton. Shouldn't there be any semblance of substance to go along with that style? Or are you the type easily persuaded by car salesmen and smooth talking personal injury lawyers? :)

[CamEdwards]

Or are you the type easily persuaded by car salesmen and smooth talking personal injury lawyers?


I know I am!

[Blackadar]

Blacky: What can I say, bro? Sometimes I just don't know what planet you live on. If that is your only reason for not voting for Bush (which, like others, I doubt that claim), then you would have not voted for Lincoln, FDR, LBJ and probably any other president. Here's my point:

The Constitution has not changed. No amendments have been deleted or added. Sometimes, as most all politicians have learned, you have to do stuff in the short-term to prevent even greater problems. But hear me on this. Why in the world would you single out habeus corpus now when all previous presidents, legislatures and most jurists have been ridiculing and abusing Constitutional rights for decades??? In certain platforms and ideologies, Bill of Rights #1, #2 and #10 do not exist.


I live in the real world, unencumbered by the mind-numbing rhetoric that turns party-followers into drooling zombies who blindly follow their leaders like the hollow-eyed, blank-staring meatheads at an Amway convention.

I suggest everyone try it, you might find you like thinking for yourself.

[Buccaneer]

I'm way ahead of you, I'm a libertarian and a constitutionalist and will be voting as thus (which means not Dem or Rep).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I live in the real world, unencumbered by the mind-numbing rhetoric that turns party-followers into drooling zombies who blindly follow their leaders like the hollow-eyed, blank-staring meatheads at an Amway convention.

I suggest everyone try it, you might find you like thinking for yourself.

I'll offer you a mind-numbing thought to chew on (probably a mixed metaphor but you get the drift):

What if, at least in some instances, the party members aren't following the leaders, but rather, it's actually the other way around? That the leaders are simply trying to keep pace with the wishes of their constituents/party members.

[SFL Cat]

SFL: Look at the list I posted. I'm not arguing civil rights. I pointed out numerous examples of the Admin or congressional leaders commiting illegal and/or corrupt acts. NONE of these actions have been denied. Now you want to say that means I'm arguing that Republicans are the worst people ever. I am certainly not making that argument. My point is that the current leadership of the Republican party has used their power in historically unprecedented ways, ways which are often illegal. Now if you can prove that I'm wrong by all means do so. If the best you can offer up is that Japanese internment was also wrong, I'll safely stand by what I wrote.

Well, you wrote in such sweeping generalities I didn't see anything specific to respond to...other than you think the Repubs are much worse than the Dems.

I think there is enough graft and corruption in both parties to keep each from pointing the finger at the other, although it hasn't stopped either from doing so. While I'm not 100% okay with everything the Bush administration has done, I perceived the previous administration as much more corrupt and lacking any sense of personal integrity or character. Of course, I'm positive each side will see what it wants to see in the other.

I think what makes most liberals despise Bush is that he operates from a core set of beliefs that are frightening to them and that they strongly disagree with. Bush is a black and white guy, there isn't a lot of gray area in his world -- and I know how much that frightens moral relatavists.

On the other hand, Clinton was the ultimate slick politician. I think his only core-values involved doing what was politically expedient for him. His handlers would analyze the most recent opinion polls, tell him what the American people wanted to hear, and Bill would give a slick presentation, say all the right things, and then not really do anything that was actually substantive. As Bucc mentioned, he was the ultimate used car salesman.

In these times, we need someone who will take authoratative action, someone who doesn't worry about how many popularity points he might lose in some poll if he takes us down a momentarily unpopular path. Clinton laments that 9-11 didn't happen on his watch...personally, I'm glad. Clinton had the opportunity to strike against Al Qaeda when they made their first moves against the U.S. (first World Trade Center bombing, the destruction of our African embassies, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole), but his fear that decisive military force might hurt his popularity ratings, especially among his core-constituency groups, kept him from doing anything other than symbolic (chunking a few cruise missiles here and there). And since he couldn't keep his pants up, he spent most of his second term dodging around that scandal the best he could (I can't help but think that if the Dems hadn't gone so hard after R. Sen Packwood on those sexual harrassment charges and gotten him kicked out of office, maybe the Republicans wouldn't have gone so hard after Clinton, but I'm probably wrong).

I never thought I would see a politicians with more flip-flops than Clinton, but Kerry is surprising me here. At least with Bush, I know pretty much what to expect. With Kerry, I suppose he'll go whichever way the wind of opinion is blowing.

[clintl]

In these times, we need someone who will take authoratative action, someone who doesn't worry about how many popularity points he might lose in some poll if he takes us down a momentarily unpopular path. Clinton laments that 9-11 didn't happen on his watch...personally, I'm glad. Clinton had the opportunity to strike against Al Qaeda when they made their first moves against the U.S. (first World Trade Center bombing, the destruction of our African embassies, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole), but his fear that decisive military force might hurt his popularity ratings, especially among his core-constituency groups, kept him from doing anything other than symbolic (chunking a few cruise missiles here and there).


I think you're wrong there about Clinton and his willingness to use military force in a potentially unpopular mission. He did stop a genocide in progress in Kosovo.

[JPhillips]

SFL: No, I posted a list of specific instances where the current Repub leadership has violated the law or used their power in clearly corrupt activities. It certainly wasn't "sweeping generalities". While I disagree with a lot of what the Republicans ran on in 1994 I did support their supposed efforts to clean up government. Dems like Rostenkowski and Wright got exactly what they deserved for being corrupt. Now this group of Republicans has exceeded the group they replaced. They have to go. Only when we punish corruption and illegal activities do we have any chance of cleaning up government. Simply saying "the other guys do it too" is useless.

[Maple Leafs]

The point here is that, for whatever reason, much of the extremist faction of the middle east wants us wiped off the planet.
I'm not sure how true that is, although of course none of us are really in a position to know for sure. Clearly the ultra-extremists -- Bin Laden et al -- feel that way. I'd still suspect that the average "man on the street" in the Middle East, as much as he may hate America, is more worried about tending his shop and taking care of his family than with wiping anyone off the earth.
So, it seems that our only option is to try and get out in front of any potential attacks and try and cripple these organizations before they amass enough resources to do some serious damage against us.
That may be very true. I'm not shy about advocating the use of serious force against a threat. Let's just be clear about what the threat is and why it's there, rather than buy into the black/white "they hate our freedom" messages of the soundbite press.

[NoMyths]

I'd still suspect that the average "man on the street" in the Middle East, as much as he may hate America, is more worried about tending his shop and taking care of his family than with wiping anyone off the earth.I agree with this statement 100%.

That may be very true. I'm not shy about advocating the use of serious force against a threat. Let's just be clear about what the threat is and why it's there, rather than buy into the black/white "they hate our freedom" messages of the soundbite press.This, on the other hand, I don't. Do not forget who said (and continued, and as far as I know still continues) to state that nonsense: President Bush. He's not given a more detailed explanation that that. Don't blame the media for reporting what the President's understanding of the situation is.