How do you come to this conclusion? Because you have failed to get me to change my opinion? Do you realize how self-centered that is? Because you have failed to convince me to change my mind about a few topics here and there I am unwilling to change my mind? Sheesh! Have you changed yours? What does that say about you?
The same ones that invite Ann Coulter on. That doesn't mean they have authorized Coulter anymore than they have the widows. That argument is just silly. They have said what they wanted. None of it was mean spirited or unrelated to issues. None of it was a personal attack on anyone. They have been able to stand the heat. Just because they can stand it doesn't mean that is ok to sling personal insults at them, especially about something as personal as losing your spouse to the terrorists on 9/11. That is an issue oriented debate based on substance. It is a discussion of the issues, and in no way a personal attack on anyone. When the president resists establishing a 9/11 commission they should talk about it, and shine a spotlight on that. What is wrong with doing that? Half of that is from somebody from the Pan Am flight. But even still none of that is a personal attack on anyone. It is a discussion of the issues and items related to that substance. Which of those statements you quoted above do you find to be attack oriented? I don't understand how anyone can even disagree with those statements. Why shouldn't the widows wonder what the govt. was going to do about investigating 9/11? It makes perfect sense. Why shouldn't they become activists in an area that had great personal effect on them, and caused them great life? What in any of that warrants them to be attacked? Here is the recap of what happened: People died at the hands of terrorists on 9/11. Widows who lost spouses in that attack want something done about it. They want to help prevent that tragedy from happening to others. They actively work toward that goal. Bush resists the idea of forming a commission. Bush forms a commission but still hasn't enacted its recommendations. Ann Coulter calls the widows personal names, attacks their personal and private relationship with their spouses. Ann coulter accuses them of enjoying the tragic deaths of their husbands. Ann Coulter makes up an argument out of thin air that the widows have somehow been shielded from all criticism(Again why would anyone want to attack them personally rather than deal with the issues they are dealing with?). Giddy believes Coulter's made up non-existent argument and publishes harmless accurate, and issue related statements by the widows to try and prove a point.
I think I change my opinion fairly regularly on topics that I am "unsure" about. I don't think it's self-centered to argue that your use of "How is it better to attempt to demean the president of the US to his face" is 1) Totally inaccurate to the situation in question 2) A complete exaggeration of a simple plea to investigate and/or react to 9/11 more thoroughly 3) A piss-poor excsuse to call someone a harpy and blabber about them enjoying their husband's deaths If that's too hard for you to understand, then I stand by my conclusion and the subsequent argument that arguing with you is pointless. Decensy is drowned and dead, and it took logical thought along with it.
How many 9/11 widows are there in total? How and why did these Four become the face of that group? Yes, they asserted themselves but they also have to be accepted. How many other widows were there? Maybe 800? And how many other unfortunate souls who lost loved ones? What is their status?
So does anyone and everyone... by definition. The self-centeredness I was referring to was your defining my willingness to change my opinion based on a few issues that you have seen debated here. I don't know if you've noticed, but very few minds are changed here. Here you go. Your argument is unassailable, I guess. Why is it not that arguing with you is also pointless? I regret Coulter's directness. I think it cost her in impact, but I'm not required to abandon her argument. That would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
They chose not to be active in the cause. That is up to them. That wasn't a decision by the MSM or anyone else. That is up to the widows themselves. I know early on many widwos were supporting these widows. Again the same shows have to accept Ann Coulter on as a guest as well.
If you made sense, I'd happily sign up with your PoV. I've changed my tune a whole lot with regard to gun control and abortion, because people (I'd imagine people similar to yourself) have successfully argued against my original perspective. I'm not trying to say you are utterly unmovable in all of your stances, I'm focusing more on this particular debate. I honestly don't know enough about you to make that kind of broad stroke. Sorry if it came off that way. I totally disagree. Just about everyone expects Coulter to be a jackass and a liar with respect to anyone she disagrees with - even her largest supporters. It did not cost her impact at all, it's the only impact she has - her "arguments" are illogical and totally off base. Let's look at a few examples (for the sake of partisan rancor, let's choose the environment): 1) People are dying in Libby Montana due to exposure to incredible amounts of asbestos being mined at a nearby tremolite facility. After YEARS of inaction, a citizen (Gayla Benefield) finally b****es and moans enough for the government (EPA) to get involved. After which, the danger of asbestos (and the corporate coverup) are exposed, government failings acknowledged (kind of) and action taken to minimize the remaining danger. For this Benefield is for the most part made a heroine for taking action where others wouldn't to prevent similar pain (her whole family, including herself, is dying or dead from asbestosis) from happening to others. 2) Lois Marie Bibbs stands up for the immense government/corporate screw-up at the Love Canal in New York. The citizens of Love Canal provided an example of how a blue-collar community with few resources can win against great odds (a multi-billion-dollar international corporation and an unresponsive government), using the power of the people in our democratic system. This is the way it works (as of late): people react to problems they see because they feel betrayed by those who were supposed to protect them (the government). Unfortunately, it seems that lately this action requires very serious demonstrations of failure before any action is taken, and the public for the most part remains apathetic unless directly affected. 3) Recall the brio dump site and the citizen efforts to get action taken? In each of these cases it's citizens asking the tough questions and forcing the government to both be accountable and take corrective action. For this type of work, better things and better living have been the result. So no, coulter's argument has no merit other than hatred and disdain for anyone critical of "her" side. All the widow's want is some sort of action to be taken to prevent 9/11 again. And of course this is directed at Bush - HE was resistant to the commission. HE does not want to address their recommendations. HE is the ****ing president in charge. HOW CAN THIS BE HARD TO UNDERSTAND. Coulter is the only one making this political - because she has nothing else to stand on, and nothing insightful to say. Boy I think this thread is now WAY off track. Good job everyone!
None but that was not the point. The point in including that was to indicate that the sluggishness to formulate a commission was a typical government response-- my guess is because these things usually become political tools meant to harm the party in power. Nobody, including Coulter, said they couldn't. I don't really want to defend something that is offensive, but I think she was just desperate to draw attention to something that was being offered up as being beyond criticism. No. It is your belief that it is a non-existent argument. I also don't begrudge these particular women expressing their grief however they so choose. The question remains how these Four got to the forefront instead of others similarly damaged.
giddy, Congress is controlled by your party. The commission was formed, over the protests of the President, to investigate the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history. This does not compute. Coulter was just desperate to draw attention to something that was being offered up as being beyond criticism? giddy, you have to be kidding. Coulter, if she was desperate about anything, it was to garner publicity for her book, so she could make a few million $$ more. I've said this before, but I don't understand why you, or any other rational, intelligent person, would attempt tp defend Coulter's remarks. Even the vast majority of GOP members of Congress found them offensive, and said so. The only ones who didn't, as best I can tell, were the far-right talking heads, and even some of them condemned them. Brother, you're parked on a rather uninhabited island on this particular issue. And none of this has anything to do with the topic. Keep D&D Civil.
I don't think America is willing to vote for a president that openly smokes cigarettes I just hope Texas is willing to elect a governor that smokes cigars. Maybe Kinky can make a run in 2012?
1. Any party can make a political football out of anything they choose-- regardless of whether or not they control Congress. 2. Coulter wrote a line or two in a book. No doubt it was over-the-top. That's Coulter's style. It has been given a life of its own by her critics. 3. I'm not up for re-election, so I don't have to make any kind of appearance to anyone. 4. And I've said this innumerable times: I've criticized Coulter's word choice, but I choose to look at her thesis rather than a particular isolated expression. She's a dead-pan comic who does political commentary.
QUESTION Let's put out there where Obama stands on some major issues: Abortion? Gay Marriage? Iraq? Terrrrism? Bible in School/Govt? Affirmative Action? THE Economy? What are some other HOT BUTTON issues? Rocket River . . then folx can decent were they stand on him
Nobody including Coulter has shown one example of where the widows weren't allowed to be attacked. That was the argument, and there has never been a case of that. These women were out in front because they are representative of other widows. These widows chose to be active on the issues. Others didn't. It is as simple as that. It is like looking at neighbor's child and then being mad because other children are in sit-coms but the neighbor's kid isn't. The neighbor's kid never even tried. Just like the other widows haven't tried. They were never presented as being off limits to criticism. Common decency should prevent people from attacking them personally.
giddyup: You continue to repeat the canard that the 9/11 widows have been presented as being "above criticism." You know what? I haven't heard anyone criticize them for their ideas or actions yet -- only for their relationships with their dead husbands. Ann Coulter won't answer these questions. Will you? 1. Do you agree or disagree with the idea of a bi-partisan commission investigating the causes of the greatest terrorist attack in our nation's history as well as means of prevention of future attacks? 2. Once that commission was actually formed, do you believe each of their recommendations ought to have been enacted? 3. If no to #2, which recommendations should Bush not enact and why? I am sure you have had some measure of personal tragedy in your life. We all have. That tragedy does not place you above all criticism for your actions or beliefs, but any criticism of those things should be of those things and not about the tragedy itself, the depth of the loss you felt or your sincerity in feeling it. If someone loses a child to a drunk driving accident and becomes active in MADD, is it okay for someone that disagrees with MADD to tell the person they're glad their child died? Or that they never loved the child anyway? Or that they're a witch? And if it's not okay, is it just the "choice of words" that's not okay? Ann Coulter doesn't even criticize the widows' positions or actions and she never has. She refuses to say on which substantive point she disagrees with them -- instead she calls them witches and says they're glad their husbands are dead. That is the most callous, disgusting, over the line thing one person can say about another person. No matter how "civil" you are on these boards or elsewhere, you give up all right to be an arbiter of same when you defend those remarks. It is seriously the grossest thing you've ever done here. p.s. When search is on, I'll find the snopes stuff. It's really not a big deal except that you've made it one in your weird mania. I never suggested that you talked about snopes in this thread before I did and it is a bizarre thing to try to bust me with. I was talking about the history of your weird love affair with fake Republican propaganda and Snopes was part of that. I didn't "write your lines" on Snopes. You did. And then you (not atypically) went insane when I brought it up. You need pills.
Bingo. I keep hearing this baloney about the "argument" behind her disgusting and useless verbage - what is it? WTF is Coulter really upset about AND WHY?
Don't bother. I'm satisfied that I recapitulated it accurately. Love affair? Ha! Another cheap shot. Just look at the language; it says what it says. You can keep denying it, but it won't change it. Big deal? Small deal? Lie? The only lines on Snopes that I wrote before you brought it up here was 2-3 years ago. You didn't write them then but you wrote some here that insinuated that I had written some early in this thread. It is a lie that you spread. You need alcohol. You remind me of a guy that I used to play basketball with. He always made these cheap, ticky-tack foul calls on everybody else. All others were intimidated to stand up to him because he was kind of a muckety-muck around town. I stood up to him and argued a call. He looked at me and winked and said ~"you think people are afraid to call me on this stuff?" I said, "Yeah, they are..." I didn't get the call then and I doubt I'll get it now. You manipulate language very well. I'm not that interested in tangoing with you in this regard, but neither will I back away meekly.
rather obvious if ya ask me refusing to enact the recommendations of the commission makes Dubya look bad....so ergo...it is bad for someone to bring it up. double bonus hatred points if they manage to get on network news with the said (truthful) criticisms. SOP for the right wing dittoheads
Hey crazy, When search is on again I will show that in response to several people telling you that your silly propagandist emails had been debunked, you questioned the credibility of the debunkers. Subsequent to that, you posted jokey, mocking, winking smilie laden one-liners about snopes if memory serves -- suggesting that people relied too heavily on them for accuracy. And that was ALL I was referencing. It wasn't some kind of 'gotcha' thing. It was just one more in a long line of examples of how you twist and turn to defend indefensible things and people (those emails, Nugent, Coulter, Bush, etc.) and not even a major one. And the fact that you've latched on to it as some kind of cause is one more in a long line of examples of you being a freaking weirdo. I never ever ever never insinuated that you talked about snopes in this thread before I did. NEVER EVER NEVER. If you think I did, your reading comprehension skills suck. And now you're calling me a liar for saying a thing I NEVER said. You are weird.
p.s. Why didn't you answer the rest of my post, including the 3 questions that Coulter eschewed in favor of the lowest form of character assassination?
ahem, back on topic, odd that the economist has an article on this the same week as usatoday: http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7141808 -- Lexington Faith, race and Barack Obama Jul 6th 2006 From The Economist print edition There could be far more like him, if gerrymandering vanished HOW can Americans overcome their divisions? Barack Obama, the son of a lapsed Kenyan Muslim, has some arresting thoughts. On the subject of tackling head-on “the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America”, the junior senator from Illinois delivered last week one of the best speeches of his brief career. He told the story of a doctor who wrote to him when he was running for the Senate in 2004. The doctor said he might vote for Mr Obama, but was repelled by a line on his campaign website promising to fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose”. The doctor wrote: “I sense that you have a strong sense of justice, [but] whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded.” Mr Obama says he “felt a pang of shame”. The offending words, which he called “standard Democratic boilerplate language”, had been posted on his website by campaign staffers. He had them changed; not because he had changed his mind about abortion, but because he wanted to “extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me”. Concerning the proper role of religion in politics, Mr Obama cautions against extremism of both stripes. Believers cannot abandon what they believe; but in a nation that includes Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and non-believers, “democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values.” Even if all Americans were Christian, it would not be easy to decide which passages of scripture should guide public policy. “Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination?” he asks. “Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount—a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defence Department would survive its application?” His elegantly non-committal answer: “Before we get carried away, let's read our Bibles.” For someone so inexperienced, and whose policies are so ill-defined, Mr Obama is extraordinarily popular. He is only 44, but people are already begging him to run for president. Something about him fills a gap in American politics: he seems not to be faking when he talks of mending America's religious and racial divides. He is that rare thing, a black politician who addresses the whole nation, not just an ethnic enclave. That this is rare is tragic. It is also virtually inevitable, given the way the electoral system works. As a senator, Mr Obama is accountable to an entire state's voters. But every other black member of Congress sits in the House of Representatives, where most represent gerrymandered majority-black districts. Unlike Mr Obama, they need not bother appealing to whites. They need not worry about the ideological centre ground, either; since no Republican can win a majority-black district, the crucial contest is the Democratic primary, in which only the most passionate Democrats vote. Racial gerrymandering has two effects. First, and most conspicuously, it allows some crummy candidates to win by prodding racial sore spots. Cynthia McKinney, for example, a congresswoman from Georgia, seems to believe that every misfortune that befalls her or America is somehow rooted in racism. When she was reproached for punching a policeman in March, the real issue, she said, was that he was a racist for not recognising her. Had he realised her rank, he would not have stopped her as she strode past him. Ms McKinney is also known for her interest in conspiracy theories about the murders of Martin Luther King and the rapper Tupac Shakur, and about President George Bush's supposed foreknowledge of the attacks of September 11th 2001. That last enthusiasm cost her her seat in 2002, a misfortune her father blamed on the Jews. But she won it back in 2004. The second effect of racial gerrymandering is less obvious, but more important. Most members of the congressional black caucus are fine politicians. But the process by which they are chosen practically guarantees that they cluster near one pole of American politics, to the left of most Democrats and indeed most blacks. This makes them less influential than they should be, even when Democrats control the House. And they find the House a rotten launching pad for higher office, because running in a 60% black district is poor preparation for a statewide campaign. Mr Obama is the only black senator, and there are no black governors. Why polarisers prevail Fans of racial gerrymandering argue that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires it. This is not obvious from the text, but bureaucrats and judges have read it that way. Fretting that racially separate voting districts depend on the “demeaning assumption that voters of a particular race...think alike,” the Supreme Court has occasionally struck down the most contorted gerrymanders (including, in 1995, the first district in Georgia to elect Ms McKinney). But most pass muster, and the civil-rights establishment is zealous in their defence. There was a big hoo-hah two weeks ago when House Republicans postponed a vote to renew for another 25 years certain emergency provisions of the Voting Rights Act—provisions that had originally been due to expire in 1970. This was wrongly portrayed as a reluctance to renew the act itself, which is permanent. The right of black Americans to vote is no longer up for debate. Unfortunately, there is not much debate about gerrymandering either. Incumbents like picking their voters, whether they are black, white, Republican or Democratic. The practice may help polarise America along racial, religious and political lines, but it also helps them keep their jobs.
