Quote:
Originally Posted by RACooper
Why how very Coulter-esque or MSNBC-Like in trying to dismiss the opinion of those who disagree by insisting that because of their political views, real or insinuatued, their opinions or observations are invalid. Why not actually elevate yourself above those hacks and actually debate or discuss the issue at hand without derailing any attempt to do so without using "your a liberal" or "your a conservative" partisan crap?
|
To be fair, "your" a liberal. I do think its a little ridiculous for you to expect me to accept your opinion of Ann Coulter as untainted by your far left viewpoints. This isn't the first time we've talked, so its not like I don't have some idea where you stand.
Ann Coulter is very intelligent. Even you should be able to admit that. As a concession, here are some liberal personalities I disagree with but would admit are intelligent and well-informed...
James Carville, Alan Colmes, the late Molly Ivins, Paul Begala, Chris Matthews...
These are people I consider intelligent, but not as well-informed:
Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Al Franken (he seems like he might soon bump up to the above group), etc...
The difference is that the people on the left who spout the kind of fringe stuff Coulter does generally aren't at her level. They're either less informed like Bill Maher, or they're less intelligent and informed, like Michael Moore. She's pretty unique in that despite her intelligence and wealth of political knowledge, she's willing to sacrifice her public image to state her views in the manner she sees fit.
There are conservative talk show hosts who I think are full of hot air. Rush and Neal Boortz are two. I think both those guys are intelligent, but they're egomaniacs who win merely by talking over other people. Chris Matthews does this on the left. Thats not what Coulter usually does.
Threaded Mode
