You taught me a French play by Ionesco in high school for about a week. My teacher was a heinous woman. You really feel the need to call me out like that? A whole thread? If you say so. What will it accomplish?
I'm not sure if she would advocate internment camps. I think you should call her show, that would be interesting. Killing goes against Christianity, but not against being an American. I admire her for her beliefs. If they are simply for shock value, that would be disappointing. Is Cindy Shehan great for her outlandish and provocative statements?
You sound really bitter. I hope you don't invest too much into 2008. We're going to have it on lockdown, as usual. Furthermore... Are you implying that women don't actually argue their positions or have the fortitude to stay the course of an argument? I guess you won't be supporting Hillary's bid for the presidency. It's not at all impossible to defend the President these days. I continue to believe that he is the greatest president in the history of this country. I'm not leaning on anything, I'm just pointing out certain facts which make genuine discourse a near impossibility on this forum. Your extremely emotional tone has already shown me enough.
some people here think I am republican. I am more right leaning I guess. I don't know what I would be classified as now since I don't really like either side anymore. I was a history major and govt minor in college. I am a stock trader now...crazy twist there. I try to think of myself as objective even though I am stubborn.
Okay, I taught you in high school for a week. You're a young guy. Okay. I'll relax a little. Does this mean that if I post some stuff about Coulter or Bush, you'll use the usual excuses not to argue back? Because, if that's the deal, if you don't have the strength of your convictions sufficient to stick with the debate, never mind. We get enough of that from your side around here. In fact, that's all we get from your side. That's why this forum sucks. Let me know if I'm wrong about you and you're actually smart enough and sincere enough to have a debate. Because I would love it.
no and neither is coulter. all she comes off to me as is a shock jock who says crazy stuff to shock people.
I can totally understand why most of the things that come out of Ann Coulter's mouth offend people, but she smirks constantly as she throws off these opinions. It's schtick. No doubt she's right-learning... and maybe even fallen over, but she is one of these entertainer/opiners with an over-the-top style. Don't take her too seriously... although I understand the desire to do so and so mock conservatism in general.
How many people do you think really agree with her schtick, and don't know it's just a big funny joke?
Hard to put a number on it, but I'd say far fewer than you'd wanna say! Are there any Left equivalents to Ann or Rush or Boortz?
I'm not sure, I don't pay much attention to the pundits from either side. I don't believe that there is equivalency in every pro/con of a subject though.
Oh I have no doubt that Coulter's a phony hustler. She talks this evil nonsense to sell books and pocket speaking fees. When her schtick [sic] doesn't sell anymore she'll take her money and move to France. Unfortunately there is a segment of society (apparently the Burzmalis) that believe her shtick and even agree with her.
Like the Colbert Report? Is there a difference whether someone means it if the messages are the same?
I will imply that you have accused the left of sedition, and even named Sheehan specifically but have provided no evidence to back up your accusation. You can not feel the need to do so, if you wish, but you run the risk of becoming a poster of no consequence if all you do is acuse, and repeat the charges of the right, and then don't discuss or debate them. You are free to choose whatever you wish. I think what would be better for the board would be that you do decided to debate topics or accusations you make.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "means it?" I love The Colbert Report and those goof reporters on The Daily Show. I can laugh at their lampooning without always having to agree with their purpose. I thought the Colbert thing at the National Correspondent's dinner was in bad taste-- because the President was in attendance. It would have been fine if delivered on his show-- provided the President wasn't his guest!
