GOP Candidates Criticize Coulter for Slur

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Sistermadly

Because he, like so many GOP "pundits" are incapable of reasoned discourse and analysis. Or rather, they may be capable of it (I've not seen any evidence, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt), but they're only interested in arguing at the level of your run-of-the-mill fourth grade bully. It's their modus operandi, and it has served them well thus far, because rather than dealing with political issues that can bring the country together, they're more interested in setting up (false) divisions between people who think/behave/love/worship "different". They're about dividing the country between "Us" and "Them", and not only are they interested in the division (which is logical), they're interested in playing up hierarchies and supremacies.

So to answer your question about why he can't just debate the issues, he can't help it. He's been bamboozled, hoodwinked, hornswaggled. He's been had. He's been took. And he can't see a way out of it for the blind distrust of anyone who isn't exactly like him.

Apparently I'm incapable, and that sounds like a challenge. Absolutely, count me in.

Lets start with the false divisions. Lets think of some divisive elements in the political arena.

The consistent badgering of the administration over Iraq, yet with a noticeable absence of alternative ideas from the left. Someone interested in uniting the country wouldn't call Bush a moron, they'd go to the President with their ideas and try to improve the situation. Thats happening a lot on the left side of the aisle huh?

How about Katrina or Walter Reed, nobody on the left is saying "lets get together and fix FEMA" or "Mr. President, lets show our soldiers their value to us." Instead, they're berating the president and trying to make it a campaign issue. Sounds like a group really focused on unifying the country and fixing our problems.

I'm more than willing to discuss changes that should be made, but I lose interest in compromise and civil discussion when confronted with people who would much rather bring down the right than improve America.

How exactly are we trying divide people? Because we believe marriage is between a man and a woman? How outrageous!

Pick an issue, lets debate. I look forward to your reply.

[shinerbock]

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.

[PeppyGPhiB]

I found it just as wrong that the people in the audience actually applauded her after she said what she did.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

Interesting i've moved from liberal to far-left now huh? Was it because I dared to express a negative opinion of a far-right media darling?

Anyways while you find it hard to accept my opinion because of political "tainting" you seem to ignore the fact that the very same "taint" can be said to be found in your opinion of Coulter, leading you to 'instinctively' defend her.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Interesting i've moved from liberal to far-left now huh? Was it because I dared to express a negative opinion of a far-right media darling?

Anyways while you find it hard to accept my opinion because of political "tainting" you seem to ignore the fact that the very same "taint" can be said to be found in your opinion of Coulter, leading you to 'instinctively' defend her.

Unlike you, I'm willing to admit she's brash and on the fringe. People like yourself won't even admit she's intelligent.

I don't think you moved anywhere. I think you've always been pretty far left, or at least thats how you've portrayed yourself on here.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Sistermadly

Because he, like so many GOP "pundits" are incapable of reasoned discourse and analysis. Or rather, they may be capable of it (I've not seen any evidence, but I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt), but they're only interested in arguing at the level of your run-of-the-mill fourth grade bully...They're about dividing the country between "Us" and "Them", and not only are they interested in the division (which is logical), they're interested in playing up hierarchies and supremacies.

To limit this to "GOP pundits" isn't quite fair. It happens on both sides of the spectrum, it can't simply be blamed on one political party, as much as some people try.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by RACooper

Interesting i've moved from liberal to far-left now huh? Was it because I dared to express a negative opinion of a far-right media darling?

If you can't see how incredibly bizarre (and bad) this sentence is, I don't really know what to say to you.

[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....

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I found it just as wrong that the people in the audience actually applauded her after she said what she did.

I was actually shocked at the audience reaction.

[shinerbock]

Meaning that despite your claims that bias doesn't effect your analysis, I have doubts based on previous comments you've made. That is all.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

your claims that bias doesn't effect your analysis

I never said that. I said I can't get more impartial.

[shinerbock]

Indeed. I interpreted your comment as indicating that you were truly impartial, as opposed to you have reached the limit of your impartiality. My mistake.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Indeed. I interpreted your comment as indicating that you were truly impartial, as opposed to you have reached the limit of your impartiality. My mistake.

It's cool.

[RACooper]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

If you can't see how incredibly bizarre (and bad) this sentence is, I don't really know what to say to you.

Please try though, I'd love to be enlightened...

Basically I was wondering why at first I was labelled a 'liberal', but then later 'far-left' after I'd posted negative comments about Coulter's style and/or character.


PS> Oh and for the record I'm a 'Red Tory' which falls firmly in the conservative camp in Canada/UK poltics (or used to)... not to sure about US politics though