GOP Candidates Criticize Coulter for Slur

[shinerbock]

DST, do you think you could beat Coulter head to head in a debate over a popular political issue? If you stripped away the entertainment value and it was wit against wit and knowledge base v. knowledge base...Maybe you could, but I think you're allowing your personal views regarding her opinions and tactics to interfere with a judgment of her abilities.

Mystic, well as someone in advocacy of course you view things from a persuasive standpoint. However, I'm sure litigators encounter situations where despite having the best case and presentation, they jury rules the other way. I love the American people, but there are about 30-40% of them who will switch positions at the drop of a hat. Thus, they're not always a strong barometer regarding who wins a particular debate.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

DST, do you think you could beat Coulter head to head in a debate over a popular political issue? If you stripped away the entertainment value and it was wit against wit and knowledge base v. knowledge base...

I don't debate politics. I debate social issues. She and I have two different career interests (and perhaps life goals) so I wouldn't be interested in familiarizing myself with the material and preparing for such a (boring) debate with her.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Maybe you could, but I think you're allowing your personal views regarding her opinions and tactics to interfere with a judgment of her abilities.

I have only made reference to her tactics and her ability to cloud the real issues. You don't know what my political opinions are and whether they differ from hers.

I have already said there were nonintellects on both sides of every debate. And that I'm only discussing her because everyone else keeps discussing her (and presenting her as some stunner who should be marveled). I don't know how much more impartial I can get than that.

[Sistermadly]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I don't debate politics. I debate social issues. She and I have two different career interests (and perhaps life goals) so I wouldn't be interested in familiarizing myself with the material and preparing for such a (boring) debate with her.

You know what, though? I'd pay money to see this. Or better yet, I'd pay money to see Julianne Malveaux debate Coulter, but somehow I doubt Malveaux would even take the time to turn up her nose at Coulter, never mind debate her in a public forum.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Sistermadly

You know what, though? I'd pay money to see this. Or better yet, I'd pay money to see Julianne Malveaux debate Coulter, but somehow I doubt Malveaux would even take the time to turn up her nose at Coulter, never mind debate her in a public forum.

Yeah please don't pay money to see me debate her. When I see her orange face staring at me with her annoying smirk, I'd either break down laughing or hit her with a chair.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Mystic, well as someone in advocacy of course you view things from a persuasive standpoint. However, I'm sure litigators encounter situations where despite having the best case and presentation, they jury rules the other way.

Without question, as you'll experience firsthand. But in those cases, the jury reaches its decision in spite of rather than because of effective advocacy.

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. When I talk about persuasiveness, I'm not talking about whether she or anyone else actually persuades a majority of the great unwashed. You're exactly right -- way too large a segment of the American public will switch views at the drop of the hat and think that People is a news magazine. I'm talking about viewing advocacy through a more objective standard -- sort of the "reasonable person" standard of the law. Would a reasonable person whom one is trying to sway to one's own position find her arguments persuasive. With her, as with Olbermann and others, I think the answer has to be "no."

But, as a cheerleader, that's not really what she's trying to accomplish.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Without question, as you'll experience firsthand. But in those cases, the jury reaches its decision in spite of rather than because of effective advocacy.

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough. When I talk about persuasiveness, I'm not talking about whether she or anyone else actually persuades a majority of the great unwashed. You're exactly right -- way too large a segment of the American public will switch views at the drop of the hat and think that People is a news magazine. I'm talking about viewing advocacy through a more objective standard -- sort of the "reasonable person" standard of the law. Would a reasonable person whom one is trying to sway to one's own position find her arguments persuasive. With her, as with Olbermann and others, I think the answer has to be "no."

But, as a cheerleader, that's not really what she's trying to accomplish.

I agree.

DST, alright. On a side note, simply saying you're impartial obviously doesn't make it so. I'm sure you realize this. People can infer your political ideology regardless of whether you put a label on it. Doesn't mean they'll be right, but they can surely make informed guesses.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

DST, alright. On a side note, simply saying you're impartial obviously doesn't make it so. I'm sure you realize this. People can infer your political ideology regardless of whether you put a label on it. Doesn't mean they'll be right, but they can surely make informed guesses.

And....