Ann Coulter: Liberal Arguments: Still A Quagmire

I am sure that Joe from Chicago is familiar with the works and person of Judge Posner- chief judge of the Seventh Curcuit Court of Appeals. In his book, An Affair of State, Posner states( P. 31).

"It is impossible to determine on the basis of what is known at present whether the President's decision to accept the recommendation of his military and national security advisors to bomb Iraq was influenced by a dessire to head off the looming vote for impeachment. The president assured the nation that it had not been; by by December 18,1998, when he offered this assurance, his crediblity was in tatters."


Demonstrably false says Joe of Chicago of Coulter's statement.

Not according to Judge Posner who tells us that there was a possibilty that Clinton used the bombing of Iraq as a device to head off the looming vote for impeachment."

Joe from Chicago notes that the unearthed graves are weapons of individual destruction.

Not if the graves are the graves of Kurds gassed by Saddam in the early nineties.

The gas used by Saddam can be clearly classed as a WMD

Joe from Chicago writes:

"Is she referring to Tom DeLay, the exterminator"?

Cute but not even in the area of Opinion( see guidelines)--more of a "non-sequitur"

Joe from Chicago fails to follow the Debate Guidelines that state that

If your claim is not something you are able to verify, note that it is your opinion only"

Joe from Chicago does not verify the comment that "a pot impugning the blackness of a kettle"

Neither does he note it is his opinion only.

Didn't you study Procedure in your Criminal Procedure class, Joe from Chicago?

Italgo,

Do you hold the same high criteria for Coluter? See nimh's post for details. I am far more lazy in this regard than he and he has assailed what you'd deemed "unassailable".

If your call for objectivity is sincere you'd hold the same for subjective and pejorative statements such as that Saddam Hussein is the favorite leader of the liberals.

It is my personal opinion that you did not, in fact, posit any intellectually sincere argument and that your posts here are deliberately rhetorical.

If you would like to discuss this with the objectivity you tout please address nimh's post. One big reason I am lazier than he is because time and time again his posts are not met with intellectual integirty.

He, in a very nice manner, pointed you to a bit of the duplicity. You can't decry any editorializing as lacking in objectivity while wedding yourself to an undesguised rhetorical piece of journalism.

Joe from Chicago excoriates Couter for her Manichean world view which does not take note of nuances.

Coulter quotes President Bush:

Either you are with the terrorists or you are with America.

Perhaps this message has no nuance in it.


I am sure that Joe from Chicago has received the rigorous training from Michigan Law School which would enable him to teach those of us who are not so well educated what the "nuances" are.

As the quidelines say:

Verify your claims.

Italgo get a grip, many opinions are of the variety that they do not need the disclaimer of being personal opinions.

Were I to state that my girlfriend is the most beautiful woman on earth it is a clear indication of a personal opinion that i hold and as such needs no disclaimer.

You purport to be enforcing the "guidelines" when you, in fact, distort them to your rhetorical whim.

Yes, it's nice to differentiate between fact and opinion, but it's equally 'nice' to be able to discuss an issue with persons equipped with the common sense to be able to differentiate obviously subjective assertions as opinion without feeling the need to stoop to the level of requesting a disclaimer for them all.

When I suggest yiu bring nothing to posit it is exactly this style I have in mind. You have proposed no arguments about the issue and choose instead to nit pick at each and every time an opinion is stated without the disclaimer of it not being a fact.

"My wife loves me."

"Aha! The guidelines say you need to differentiate that there opinion of yours from a fact bub!"

So again, do you ahve an argument about teh article to posit? nimh carped it easily. Without meaning to detract from his ability to do this I note that the ease largely derivates from the rhetorical nature and fallacy inherent to the arguments Ms. Coulter posits.

Do you stand by her arguments as you declare in your first post? Or are you here for rhetorical barbs as well?

Joe from Chicago excoriates Coulter for not knowing what a straw man argument really is.

I did not have the opportunity to attend law school but I learned that a strawman was an argument intended to divert someone from the real issues.

I await Joe from Chicago's statements( with verification, of course) about the "real" issues.

Or could it be that the "real" issues are, as the guidelines say, Opinions?

On Coulter's comment concerning Saddam's dead sons, Joe from Chicago tells us, I don't even know where to begin to cover the arguments here.

Oh, please, do begin at least. Don't keep us in suspense.

I am very much afraid that despite the excellent training Joe from Chicago received from the sixth or seventh best law school in the country( There are better ones, of course), he must have missed Political Science or he is attempting to mislead.

Coulter also apparently exaggerates but not as wildly as Joe from Chicago.

When Coulter says that:

"We have seen how well the Democratic surrender approach has worked for fifty years"( not quite correct but certainly not as misleading as Joe from Chicago's comment:
"Granted in those 20 years there were only 30 years of Democratic administrations as opposed to 30 years of Republican ones"


Joe from Chicago is apparently either suffering under the delusion that all that is needed for an administration to enact the objectives of the party is to have one of its members as President.
It is clear to anyone who has the most basic knowledge that there is little that can be done by any president if the House and Senate are controlled by the opposition party.

Of course, some legislation can be enacted. However, when we study the Clinton years, we find that his major inititatives( Nafta, welfare reform) were really Republican initiatives.

Desiring to follow the rules as laid down by the Debate Guidelines, I will now show that theRepublicans have not controlled the House and Senate and held the Presidency in fifty years, as Coulter indicates, with one brief exception.

The dean of American Presidential Historians, Fred Greenstein, tells us in his book "The Presidential Difference" that
in 1951-1953, the DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY, THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE.

In 1953, the Republicans controlled the House and Senate and the presidency for Two years( 1953-55) but then LOST CONTROL OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE FROM 1955 TO 1960.

From 1961 TO 1967, the DEMOCRATS CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY,HOUSE AND SENATE.

In 1968< Nixon was elected ( and was succeeded by Ford )so the Republicans controlled the Presidency but NEVER THE HOUSE OR SENATE from 1968 to 1977.

Carter was then elected and the Democrats controlled the HOUSE AND SENATE from 1976 to 1980.

In 1981, Reagan was elected, THEN THE REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY UNTIL 1988 BUT NEVER CONTROLLED BOTH HOUSES-

1981-1983- Senate- Rep.
House- Dem.

1983-1985- Senate- Rep.
House- Dem.

1985-1987 - Senate- Rep.
House- Dem.

AND 1987-1989
SENATE- DEM.
HOUSE DEM.

Reagan never had both Houses and didn't have any of them in the last two years of his term.

In 1990- George Bush, sr. became president but never had the HOUSE OR THE SENATE WHICH WERE BOTH DEMOCRATIC.

Then , CLINTON BECAME PRESIDENT IN 1993 AND BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE WERE DEMOCRATIC FOR TWO YEARS- 1993-1995.

However, Clinton lost both the House and the Senate in 1994's election and from 1994 to 2000 the House and Senate were both Republican although the Democrats HELD THE PRESIDENCY,

Finally, George W. Bush became President in 2000, and the Republicans held the HOUSE AND ARE STILL HOLDING THE HOUSE.

THE REPUBLICANS HELD THE SENATE FOR A SHORT TIME AND JEFFORDS CAUSED A SWITCH IN THE EARLY PART OF 2001 HOWEVER, THE REPUBLICANS RETOOK THE SENATE IN 2002. THE REPUBLICANS NOW HOLD THE PRESIDENCY, THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE.

Source-The Presidential Difference- by Fred Greenstein Pages 202 to 234.

It is clear that the Democrats held COMPLETE CONTROL ( meaning the presidency, house and Senate) for SIXTEEN YEARS IN WHICH THEY CONTROLLED BOTH THE HOUSE, SENATE AND PRESIDENCY. The Republicans only held the Presidency, House and Senate for slightly over 4 of those lkast 53 years.

Joe from Chicago pillories Coulter for her lack of attention to nuance yet his attention to nuance is nil when he tells of 20 years of Democratic Administration compared to 30 years of Republican Admininstration referring only to the Presidency.

I am certain that Joe from Chicago knows that the executive can do little wih a Congress that may not be sympathetic to his objectives.

Nah - he prefers to pounce on whichever statement he can "expose" for not meeting his standards of proof and reason, and ignore any opponent's post that does provide the sources he demands.

I'm beginning to view this as a tired trick of some posters. Perception does it, too, sometimes, though not as egregiously. He will accuse all liberals of practicing mere rhetorics; ignore the replies he gets that prove that statement wrong; and wait until some liberal or other does indeed answer with mere rhetorics - and then go "see! see!". Though as often as not, perception at least tries.

Same double standards, as you point out, on "his" source versus "ours". He tries to take apart Joe's arguments through a degree of scrutiny that hardly any of Coulter's statements would hold up against - but ignores any reference to that being so.

I mean, damn - and I only did the first paragraph! ;-)

Mr. Craven: Do I understand you to say that it is not necessary to follow the guidelines?

Is it true that we do not have to, as the guidelines say-"Verify your claims"?

Is it true that we do not have to "differentiate fact from opinion"?

Is it true that we do not have to adhere to the fallowing:"If our claim is not something we are able to verify, we must note that it is our opinion only"?

If so, why were the guidelines posted?????

I believe in guidelines. I think they are good guidelines which will relieve us of the idiocies that occur when someone says:

"The Bush family was controlled by the Nazi party"

However, you know more about the site than I do and I will conform to you guidance.

But, please, do not excoriate me if I do as you ask and do not follow the guidelines.

Thank You.

The Netherlands is a sinkhole of depravity and is occupied mainly by perverts and morons.

Only my opinion, of course.

The guidelines are suggestions, the TOS is the rule. You have been more than willing to break the TOS and call another member an 'ass' and you are only using the guise of being concerned about the guidelines as a pretext to make silly comments about other members.

Dr. De Kere:

I believe that you are being unfair.

If you will read the post made by Mamajuana you will note that she indeed called me an ass( In Spanish).

Are you so unfair that you will not also let her know that she is not to do so?

I expected, at the very least, objectivity and fairness from you.

I think I now know that your "fairness" extends only to the people who agree with your opinions.

Is this a site where people can express their opinions using "evidence" and sources or is it Pravda?

Please let me know.

If it is Pravda, I don't belong here.

I will scrutinize my submissions( unless this is Pravda) to make sure that none of them can be judged as "Silly"

I am quite certain that showing that someone has erred by using good sources and documentation, can not be classified as "silly"

However, if you insist, I will comb the site to list for you all of the messages I have received concern my submissions which could indeed qualify as being "silly".

Would you care for such a listing. Please let me know.

She did not call you an ass. She quoted a Spanish proverb. You named her directly with your slur.

The application of the rules here has nothing to do with whether my opinions are agreed with. You are making a feckless accusation and frankly I don't care if you think you "belong here" or not. I am not your babysitter.

I don't care a whit about what you think of the fairness of the implementation of the rules. The fact remains that YOU broke them and are playing a childish "but but but SHE did!" game.

Your use of this forum is dictated by the terms of service regardless of how it is applied or how well you think you fit in. I am as disinterested in holding your hand and walking you through the rules as if this were preschool as I am in hearing about how you feel about whether you "belong".

No, I would not care for such a listing. Again I care not a whit about what you would put together as a list of what is "silly".

If you are taking requests here's one: address nimh's post.

Dear Dr. DeKere: I do not know which post you mean. Nimh's post?

Which one?


If I think I can answer it, I certainly will comply with
your request. I will also try to make sure that my response is not "silly" and that it falls under the guidelines listed.

I hope that I am not violating any rules if I point out what I feel is a "silly" ethnic slur made by gelesti(sp?) to me>

I DID NOT ADDRESS GELESTI(sP.) IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM SO THAT CANNOT BE USED THIS TIME.

Or does your adherence to the rules only apply to certain people.

Please let me know.

Yes, my adherence to the rules only apllies to certain people. Or person rather. MY adherence to the rules is a case that applies only to ME.

Now, if you have a qualm with something he said (which I didn't read) send a report to the moderator account as I personally won't pay much attention. I was not an involved party.

Here is the post by nimh that I had in mind:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=347903#347903

Don't worry about being silly, I'd expect nothing less. But if I were you I'd look for the few holes he left. His arguments are sound but the way they are couched leaves a few holes and a logomachy is right up your alley.

Just a friendly heads-up, you have taken up an indefensible position by wedding yourself to Coulter's arguments and labelling them as "unassailable" so you would actually be wise to stick to finding rhetorical holes unless you care to reconsider your accessment of the validity of Coulter's arguments.