It's clear from his post he would. We vote and then we stop thinking and shut up, "which is the point of a democracy."
Because most of the time you don't know the people involved. Most of the time it is totally subjective, and the attacks on the person come without any substance to back them up. In addition other people's personal opinion about personal matters are rarely important, and certainly not worthy of 'news' shows. It just isn't important at all what you or anyone else thinks of people we've all never met as human beings. Certainly Coulter's attacks on the widows come without substance. There is zero evidence that they enoy their husband's deaths. There is little evidence that they are harpies, and witches.
Did I say I didn't have an opinion? It doesn't matter what my opinion is, as it is an extremely un-informed one compared to the elected officials. It's not messed up, it's logical.
A government controlled by Democrats would also be better informed with more experience than I. I wouldn't like the government to be controlled by Democrats because I don't agree with their BS in a general sense. Isn't that how our system in truth works? Vote for people who you think/act the closest to how you think/act? Then leave it up to them? That's why alot of these discussions about policy are similar to the armchair GM discussions in the sports forums.
What is it? Which 9/11 commission recommendations should be ignored? These women are being slandered by Coulter because of their political opinions. Here is the sum of those opinions: 1. They wanted a 9/11 commission to study how the tragedy occurred and how to be sure we were doing everything we could to prevent it happening again. 2. They wanted all of the recommendations of the commission to be enacted. That's it. That's all there was. In the last presidential election they endorsed the candidate that supported those two things over the one that opposed them. And that is why they are being slandered by Coulter. You're backing Coulter here, so I'll ask again. Which of the commission's recommendations do you think ought to be ignored?
No oversight at all then? No assuring oneself that the elected officials are keeping up their end of the bargain? That's just incredibly stupid.
Check and balances, accountability, true leadership; that is all so 20th century. Get with the program folks, this is the New American Century!
Of course you're argument is based on your assumption that Coulter is "slandering" them because she thinks the commision's recommendations should be ignored, and they don't. Erroneus. She is standing up against these oppurtunistic political pets of the left. Personally? I think the "recommendations" are a bunch of BS political nonsense that doesn't have a basis in reality. I don't think you can form realistic policy around the 9/11 commision. (Which depending on your viewpoint is either a liberal witchhunt or a conservative band-aid.) I do like the part about prioritizing potential terrorist sanctuaries though. Kind of reminds you of a places like Iraq, no?
The only "opportunity" these widows seek, to the best of my knowledge, is to see that the 9/11 commission's recommendations are carried out. If you are aware of some other opportunism on their part, please enlighten me. The only crime these women committed in order that they would be so viciously slandered by Coulter was to endorse Kerry. And they only did that because Bush continues to resist carrying out the 9/11 commission's recommendations. Sane people understand why they would feel they had a stake in that. You are a nutjob though, so I can see where you might feel differently. As for the rest, this is from the "BS political" commission's website: http://www.9-11commission.gov/ The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.
Personal attacks already? I imagine I'm on an extremely tight leash, so I won't respond in kind. I hope you feel good about yourself though. I don't like the way you word your posts. It's like you're a writer for a bitter TV show guy like Olberman or something. As to the 9/11 comission website and how it describes it self... um, so what?
So what? That is the substance of the whole topic at hand. As batman has pointed out, these women are being slandered and verbally attacked by the likes of Coulter because they wanted a 9/11 commission, and then had the audacity to want the commissions ideas implemented. That is the substance. Meanwhile they are attacked from Coulter, and nobody has yet to show one instance to back up Coulter's claim that nobody can respond to the women because they are widows. So there is zero to back up anything Coulter has claimed, while batman presents an entire website on the 9/11 commission and asks what part of the substance these widows stand behind do you disagree with. Your response is attempted defense of Coulter and to say 'So What?' to the work the widows have been advocating.
What a marvelous and completely compelling argument. I mean, the american public has never had to rely on the press or watchdog groups to uncover government corruption and lies. Never. Thanks burzmali, I've now seen the light. Soon, I won't think constructively about anything. I'll revel in my newfound ignorance. I'll trust that everything the government does is perfect and just. How's that go again? Oh yeah - That's just incredibly stupid.
No, actually BJ posted that blurb in response to me saying that the Comission is a BS political tool. I fail to see how their self description contradicts my opinion. Even bad movies have the flashy trailers with "Incredible! says the New York Times" BS. Why do I feel like this is another semantics argument. Coulter's claim was not that one would not be literally able to speak out against the women, but that to speak out against them would be attacked by many people giving them carte blanche because of their tragedy. "these women are being slandered and verbally attacked by the likes of Coulter because they wanted a 9/11 commission, and then had the audacity to want the commissions ideas implemented." That's just blatantly untrue! You are twisting the facts.
That doesn't make sense. The 9/11 widows wanted to 9/11 commission as a political tool? These women were never activists at all prior to 9/11. It isn't like they were just sitting there waiting for the chance to spring their political agenda into action. One of the women that Ann was talking about was a registered Republican. It wasn't until more than a year after 9/11 before they became active on the issues. It doesn't make sense that it was just a tool. I think it is obvious that the commission is something that deals with a subject that personally affected these women. They wanted action taken. They exercised their rights. Coulter didn't argue against the substance of what they were doing, but instead called them names and accused them of enjoying their husbands death.
